propose_attach_foundation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states read-only, nothing is created or credited, and returns candidate pairs with match score. This sufficiently discloses behavior for a non-destructive 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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. Clearly states purpose, read-only nature, and next step. Efficient and well-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?

Has output schema, so return details need not be described. Description covers core functionality and next step. Missing minor prerequisites (e.g., model must have objectives) but adequate for typical use.

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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema descriptions (consumer model, foundation to delegate to) are clear. Description provides context but not extra 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 clearly states the tool proposes which foundation capabilities cover each objective, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the sibling 'attach_foundation' by noting it is read-only and produces candidate pairs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to feed the chosen subset to 'attach_foundation', indicating it's a precursor. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the read-only note suggests appropriate usage context.

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