mavis_coder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format ('Returns the model content plus token usage and latency') and implies statelessness via 'single text generation.' However, it does not discuss potential costs, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. The disclosure is useful but not comprehensive, meriting a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. It includes return behavior and an alternative pointer without filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple text-generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and an exclusion for multi-step work. It lacks an example or explicit mention of statelessness, but these are not critical for this tool's complexity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%: every parameter (model, prompt, system, max_tokens, temperature) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Call MiniMax-M3 (OpenAI-compatible) for a single text generation.' It specifies concrete use cases (drafting code, writing explanations, summarizing files) and distinguishes itself from multi-step agentic work by pointing to an alternative. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use for drafting code, writing explanations, summarizing files, or any text-in/text-out task') and when not to use it ('For multi-step agentic work with tool calling, see Sprint B-2'). However, the alternative pointer is vague ('Sprint B-2 (not yet implemented)') and does not name the sibling tool mavis_coder_agent, which could be the actual alternative. This prevents a perfect score.

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