Propose Attach Foundation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is read-only, returns candidate pairs with match scores, and that 'Nothing is created or credited', which prevents an agent from expecting side effects. It does not mention potential edge cases or prerequisites, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the read-only behavior, the output type, and the pointer to attach_foundation. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, behavior, output nature, and next step. It does not fully explain when to choose this over other read-only proposal-like siblings, but the explicit link to attach_foundation and the focus on candidate generation make the tool's role sufficiently clear.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the property names and the schema descriptions. The 'server_version' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving a gap for a required parameter. The two model-related parameters are reasonably described in the schema, but the description itself does not compensate for the missing server_version semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Propose'), a specific resource ('this model's objectives each foundation capability covers'), and a clear deliverable (candidate objective-provider control pairs with a match score). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling attach_foundation by explicitly stating that this tool is read-only and only proposes candidates.

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 gives clear context: this is a read-only proposal step and nothing is created or credited. It explicitly points to attach_foundation as the next step by saying 'Feed the chosen subset to attach_foundation', which helps an agent understand the tool's role relative to its sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose and downstream relationship are clear enough.

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