parameter

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'read or write'. It fails to disclose side effects like whether writing creates new directives or requires existing ones, leaving the agent unaware of important constraints.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 that an output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, the description is adequate but lacks important behavioral distinctions. It does not explain the conditional behavior of reading vs writing based on parameter presence, which is relevant for a dual-purpose tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the interaction between 'name' and 'value' (e.g., reading vs writing) is not clarified beyond the schema definitions.

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 reads or writes .PARAM directive values in circuit files, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'edit_directive' which might handle similar operations on other directives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as creating new parameters vs updating existing ones, or how it differs from editing directives via 'edit_directive'.

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