rerank_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return format (sorted descending) and the accepted model identifiers, but it omits potential side effects, rate limits, or the fact that using remote models like cohere/jina may incur network calls and costs.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It leads with the core action, then lists model options and the return format. Every sentence contributes value with no filler.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, simple return array), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics implicitly, and return shape. It lacks usage guidance and error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward rerank operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description enriches the parameters by explaining 'docs' as document strings, 'query' as the relevance basis, and explicitly listing the allowed model values. It adds semantics beyond the raw schema, though it could further elaborate on query expectations.

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: reranking document strings by relevance to a query. The verb 'rerank' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_all or summarize_docs.

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?

Usage context is implied: you must already have a list of documents and a query to rerank. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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