detail_6

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' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, its side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. It fails to provide any behavioral context.

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 extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single word fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. It doesn't front-load key details because it provides none.

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 multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description should explain the tool's role, behavior, and differentiation. 'detail' alone provides none of this, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it also doesn't add any semantic context. Given the absence of parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's no parameter information 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 without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It provides no meaningful information about 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar tools (e.g., 'detail', 'detail_1', 'detail_2'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation, leaving the agent with no basis for selection.

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