wear_hat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it imports knowledge and layers personal memories on top, giving some behavioral context. However, it omits potential side effects, persistence, or whether activating a new pack replaces the previous one, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Activate') and resource. Every word adds value, and the metaphor of 'wear_hat' is clarified immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, the effect on memory, and the layering behavior. It doesn't address deactivation or how this fits with sibling tools, but for its simplicity it covers the essential context well.

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 already provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'hat_id' described as 'ID of the Intelligence Pack to activate'. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 action ('Activate an Intelligence Pack') and the resource ('Intelligence Pack'), with a concrete effect ('Imports expert knowledge into your memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by focusing on pre-packaged knowledge rather than individual memories.

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 clear context: use this tool to activate an Intelligence Pack for expert knowledge. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous, and siblings like 'list_hats' imply available options without needing explicit contrast.

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