Octo Thinks Decision Presets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the lower bar applies. The description adds useful context about returned content: localized copy, options and criteria, future-role ideas, product matrix, FAQs, related guides, and a handoff URL; it does not cover invalid-slug or not-found behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states the action and scope, the second enumerates the return payload. The list is dense but purposeful, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so richly across several content types. It is missing error or not-found behavior for an invalid slug, but it is otherwise complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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 50%: slug is documented as the exact value returned by search, and locale has an enum and default. The description adds only that the preset is in a 'supported language,' which partially clarifies locale, but it does not explain locale fallback or slug format.

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 resource: 'Get' an 'Octo Thinks preset,' scoped to one item and a supported language. It distinguishes itself from the search sibling through the single 'finished' preset focus, though it does not explicitly name search_octothinks_presets.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_octothinks_presets or when not to use it. However, 'Get one finished preset' combined with the schema note that slug is 'returned by search_octothinks_presets' implies a search-first workflow.

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 a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context beyond that: results are limited to 'finished' (published/reviewed) presets and to a single supported language at a time, which an agent needs to interpret the result set.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the discovery scope front-loaded and the follow-up call placed second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least signals that results carry a slug usable downstream, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It doesn't sketch the remaining result shape or how pagination totals surface, which is a modest gap for a 5-parameter search tool.

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 60%; query, offset and the locale enum are already documented in the schema, and 'in one supported language' only restates the locale parameter without enumerating values or explaining single-locale matching behavior. Limit and category get no added meaning from the description.

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 resource ('Search the finished Octo Thinks decision-preset catalogue') and immediately distinguishes the sibling's role by saying the returned slug goes to get_octothinks_preset for full detail. An agent can tell the discovery tool apart from the fetch tool without opening either schema.

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 second sentence gives a clear routing rule: search here for discovery, then call get_octothinks_preset with the returned slug for full content. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when not to search, or how to browse without a query), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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