detail_3

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The single word 'detail' gives no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what data it accesses, potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It fails to convey any behavioral characteristics.

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 concise with a single word, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks necessary structure and fails to front-load essential information, making it inefficient for an agent to understand the tool's role without additional context.

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 the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., multiple 'detail' variants) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns, failing to meet minimal contextual needs.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the description does not introduce confusion about inputs.

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_3' without specifying what resource it details or what action it performs. It provides no verb or object to clarify the tool's function, making it impossible to understand its purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'detail', 'detail_1', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar tools (e.g., 'detail', 'detail_1', 'detail_2'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or distinctions to inform selection, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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