infomaniak_help

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that the tool uses 'lightweight keyword matching', which implies limited accuracy and simple logic. This adds behavioral context, though it could be more detailed about limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No redundant words, each sentence serves a purpose.

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 parameters, the presence of an output schema (not shown), and the straightforward nature of a tool recommender, the description is complete enough. It explains both what the tool does and how (keyword matching).

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 has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (intent has description, limit does not). The description adds some context ('keyword matching' implying how intent is used) but does not elaborate on limit's purpose or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already covers the required parameter.

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 verb 'suggest', the resource 'which Infomaniak tools', and the method 'lightweight keyword matching'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are specific actions (create, delete, list), making its purpose distinct.

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 the agent needs to map a natural language intent to a tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools is clear, and the description provides adequate guidance for the agent.

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