every

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the return value but omits critical details such as the behavior on empty arrays (vacuously true in many languages) and how the 'specified condition' is provided. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

A single, clear sentence that directly explains the core behavior. No wasted words, appropriate length for a simple boolean utility.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for an agent: no parameters are defined in the schema, no output schema exists, and the description fails to specify how the array and condition are supplied. Edge cases like empty arrays are not covered, making reliable invocation difficult.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is the only source of semantic context. It mentions 'array' and 'condition', which clarifies expected inputs conceptually, though it does not define their syntax. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero parameters, and the description earns it.

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 returns a boolean based on whether all array items match a condition. It uses the verb 'returns' and specifies the resource (array) and condition. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'any' via the word 'all', but does not explicitly name it.

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 implies a use case (checking all items match a condition) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference sibling tools like 'any' or alternative approaches, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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