configure_effort_weighting

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. No mention of persistence, side effects, authorization needs, or interaction with other components. The agent is left blind to consequences.

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 the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to deliver necessary information, making it insufficiently helpful despite its brevity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is entirely inadequate. The tool has two parameters with semantic significance that remain completely unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero meaning to the parameters 'enabled' and 'weight'. The agent cannot infer valid ranges, units, or effects of these 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 'Configure effort weighting' is vague and does not specify what 'effort weighting' is or how it is used. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like configure_time_decay, leaving the agent uncertain about its specific purpose.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, making it impossible for the agent to decide correctly.

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