𓂀𓁢𓋹𝔸ℕ𝕌𝔹𝕀𝕊𓋹𓁢𓂀 - Intelligent Guidance for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's safe (e.g., read-only), if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 tool's complexity (involving role progression with multiple sibling tools), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'focused next step information' includes, how it differs from similar tools, or what the agent can expect in return, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'id' as 'Task ID for context' and 'roleId' as 'Role ID for next step query.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact or their impact on results. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'Get focused next step information for role progression,' which provides a general purpose (retrieving next step data) but lacks specificity about what 'focused next step information' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_step_progress.' It's vague in distinguishing the exact resource or scope.

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 such as 'get_step_guidance' or 'get_role_transitions.' The description implies usage for role progression but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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