generate_pivots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'compute,' implying a read-like operation, but it doesn't mention whether it mutates the base map, requires prior generation, or has side effects. The shared base idle map is mentioned but its state or prerequisites are not explained.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the routing advice is succinct. It earns a high score for economy of expression.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description omits parameter explanations, behavioral side effects, and any prerequisites (e.g., how the 'shared base idle map' is created). For a tool with two optional parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 provides zero information about 'scale' or 'output_dir'. The agent cannot infer what values to pass or what effects they have, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('compute') and a clear resource ('articulation pivots on the shared base idle map'). It also names a sibling tool (generate_character) for a distinct scenario, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from alternatives.

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?

It explicitly advises 'Prefer generate_character for named chars,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't fully spell out when to use this tool (e.g., for unnamed characters or custom pivots), but the guidance is clear enough for most cases.

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