detail_2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single word 'detail' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, side effects, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While 'detail' is certainly concise, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single word fails to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose or usage. True conciseness requires conveying essential information efficiently, not omitting it entirely.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the context. With no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the single word 'detail' fails to provide the minimal information needed for an agent to understand what this tool does or when to use it. This is especially problematic given the crowded namespace of detail-related tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'detail' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'detail_2', providing no meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify any verb or resource, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'detail', 'detail_1', 'detail_3', etc.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar-sounding sibling tools (detail, detail_1, detail_3, etc.), the lack of any context or differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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