wear_hat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that activating a pack imports expert knowledge and that existing memories layer on top, which implies non-destructiveness. However, it omits details about persistence, reversibility, or any side effects on existing memory, leaving gaps for a state-changing tool.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence is an immediate, clear action statement, and the second adds essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens on invocation (imports knowledge, layers memories). It could be improved by referencing how to discover hat_id (e.g., via 'list_hats'), but the core functionality is clear for a basic interaction.

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 fully describes the only parameter (hat_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds the phrase 'Intelligence Pack' which aligns with the schema but provides no additional semantics about where to find the ID or formatting rules, so the baseline score 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 with a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('Intelligence Pack'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_hats' (listing) and 'remember'/'recall' (memory operations), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage when you need to import expert knowledge, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling tool names suggest some context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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