name_the_danceDescribe a recent conflict and Figs will name the Waltz of Pain, each protector and fear, and one sentence each partner can say.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| what_happened | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool will produce, but it discloses no further behavioral traits such as hidden dependencies, limitations, or response handling.
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 description is a single well-formed sentence that moves from the required input to the expected output with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the core instruction is front-loaded.
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 read-only, one-parameter naming tool, the description covers the input, the purpose, and the return contents even though no output schema is present. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing when to prefer sibling tools or how much conflict detail is needed.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the sole parameter, what_happened. 'Describe a recent conflict' directly maps to the parameter and gives meaningful semantic guidance. It does not specify format or level of detail, but for a single free-text input this is sufficient.
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 states a specific action ('will name') and a specific scope ('a recent conflict'), and it enumerates the concrete outputs: the Waltz of Pain, each protector and fear, and a sentence per partner. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the output is distinctive enough that an agent can infer what this tool does.
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?
The opening instruction 'Describe a recent conflict' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the output framing suggests a naming/reflection use case. However, it does not provide exclusions or direct comparison with siblings like ask_relationship_expert or repair_right_now, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: general Q&A, finding a therapist, taking an assessment, naming conflict patterns, providing immediate repair steps, and offering wisdom score insights. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_, find_, get_, name_, repair_, wisdom_score_preview). The verbs are varied but each clearly indicates the action, and the pattern is uniform across the set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a relationship expert domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of relationship guidance without excess or redundancy, making the count appropriate for both usability and maintainability.
The tool surface covers core relationship needs: general advice, therapist matching, assessment, conflict analysis, immediate repair, and personalized insight. The only minor gap is the lack of a tool for scheduling sessions or accessing broader educational resources, but the existing set addresses the primary lifecycle without significant dead ends.