Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a usage condition but no new behavioral traits (e.g., response format, side effects). Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description's additional value is minimal but not contradictory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the condition, and the fallback allowance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation logic. It does not explicitly state what the response contains (e.g., a list of tool definitions), but the phrase 'check for additional tools' implies discovery of more tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete, though a hint about the return type would elevate it.
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% for the single parameter 'context' (documented as 'A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it.'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check for additional tools' with a specific verb and resource. It conditions usage on potential benefit, distinguishing it from the sibling tools (community, leadership, partnership) which are unrelated to tool discovery. No ambiguity.
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?
Provides clear usage context: 'whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, including edge case of fallback tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling tools are contextually different, that's acceptable. Slight deduction for not mentioning when not to use, but overall strong guidance.
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 targets a completely different task: launching a local meetup, benchmarking leadership ratios, and building a partnership business case. There is no conceptual overlap, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: assess_community_launch_readiness, benchmark_leadership_ratio, build_partnership_business_case. This is perfectly consistent and predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core high-value actions a user would want from an ELC toolkit. Each tool is meaningful and earns its place; the count never feels padded or insufficient.
The three tools cover the main engagement areas: start a chapter, benchmark your organization, and fund/partner with ELC. The only minor gaps are things like event lookup or direct membership application, but those seem intentionally excluded and the referenced partnership server fills one gap.