Ladder by Aizhan Li

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with "answers are not stored or logged, so it is safe to retry," which is the retry-relevant consequence rather than a restatement. More importantly it discloses a major behavioral branch absent from annotations: crisis or violence language short-circuits the normal reading and returns helpline numbers instead. That is exactly the kind of beyond-schema behavior an agent must know before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the outcome the tool produces, then constraints, then the crisis branch, then the read-only note, which is a sensible priority order for an agent skimming. It is a single dense block rather than scannable segments, and the parenthetical input list (goal, "I" point, obstacles, fears) partly duplicates the schema. Still, nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to re-document return values, and it instead describes only the shape of the payoff plus the exceptional crisis return. Combined with the annotation coverage and the privacy/retry note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly, handle the fallback branch, and know that retrying is harmless.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every field, including lengths, array bounds and the language enum. The description still adds real semantic constraints on what may be passed: only the user's own short phrases, and no diagnoses, symptoms, medication or health details. That is meaning beyond the schema's type and length rules, though it does not clarify field-level distinctions the schema leaves implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and artifact: builds a Ladder from the user's own answers and returns zone-grouped steps, an interpretation, two reflection questions and a link to the full diagnostic. The enumeration of inputs (goal, "I" point, 3-5 obstacles, up to 5 fears) matches the schema exactly, so the agent knows precisely what it produces and from what. Placing it "after the user has answered the self-check questions" functionally separates it from get_ladder_questions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger (once the user has answered the self-check questions), explicit exclusions (do not pass diagnoses, symptoms, medication or other health details, because the tool does not analyze them), and a distinct fallback path for crisis or violence language. It also tells the agent what to do when that fallback fires: show only the crisis message and helpline numbers, with no steps and no reading. The sibling get_ladder_questions is not named outright, but the sequencing plus the negative guidance leaves little ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the returned language options and the privacy posture ("takes no personal data and stores nothing"), which is not encoded anywhere in the structured fields. Return-shape detail is rightly omitted because an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and content list are front-loaded, followed by when-to-use, the exclusion, and the privacy note in a logical order. The parenthetical definition of obstacles ("things people said that the person believes") is helpful domain context rather than filler, though the sentence runs long and the attribution to the author is a minor luxury.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, when not to, language behavior, and privacy. The only material omission is explicit routing versus the sibling analyze_ladder, which is the most likely invocation ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter already documents ru/kk/en, including the fallback rule for other languages. The description's "Returns texts in Russian, Kazakh or English" restates the enum without adding syntax, defaults, or fallback details beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ("Returns the questions of the Ladder self-check") and enumerates the content of those questions (goal, current 'I' point, 3–5 obstacles, optional fears), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling analyze_ladder by being the content/framework tool rather than an analyzer, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit positive triggers ("the user wants to do the Ladder self-check or asks how the Ladder method works") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not use for questions about an illness, symptoms, the psychosomatics of a disease or medication"). What it lacks is routing to the alternative tool — with analyze_ladder present as a sibling, the definition never says when to prefer that one instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.