app_set_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact file written, that the dashboard polls it and shows a banner, that the operation is purely informational and does not affect tool dispatch, the recommended call timing, the empty-string clearing behavior, and the return shape with truncation. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any structured field provides.

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 front-loaded with purpose and behavior, then uses clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information: mechanism, informational status, call timing, examples, clearing behavior, parameter format, and return value. There is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter informational tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, side effects, clearing behavior, parameter format, and return value; an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It describes the single intent parameter as a short human-readable description, constrains it to one line and <=240 characters, and explains that an empty string clears the banner. These are meaningful semantics not present in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it tells the dashboard the high-level task the agent is working on. It also clarifies the mechanism (writes workspace/intent.txt for the dashboard banner) and explicitly distinguishes this from operational routing by saying it does not affect tool dispatch. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 guidance on when to call it: once at the start of a long task, with concrete examples of intent text, and notes that an empty string clears the banner. It does not name alternatives such as design_live_note, so the routing context is clear but not exhaustive; a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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