Advise Eden Compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces these with 'reversible' and 'never changes emulator settings.' It adds context about the input source ('current diagnostics and metrics') without contradicting annotations, providing a clear safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core functionality and safety guarantee without any unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded and clearly 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?

Given the tool's simple advisory nature, good annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only gap is the absent parameter explanation, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall context is sufficient for a low-risk advisory tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'focus' or 'session_id.' While the enum and nullable type provide some structure, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ranked, reversible compatibility experiments'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it never changes emulator settings. This makes its advisory role 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 provides clear context: it is a read-only advice tool that generates experiments from current diagnostics. The phrase 'never changes emulator settings' implicitly tells the agent to use this when recommendations are needed without side effects, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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