reorganize

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'preview', implying no side effects, but does not confirm read-only status or describe any outputs, side effects, or requirements.

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 a single sentence and concise, but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, the lack of substantive information reduces its effectiveness.

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 has one required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what a reorganization plan is, what the instruction entails, or what the output looks like. This forces the agent to guess.

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 input schema has no description for 'instruction' (0% schema description coverage). The description does not clarify the format, allowed values, or purpose of the instruction parameter, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 'Preview an intelligent reorganization plan' indicates a specific action (preview) on a resource (reorganization plan) but is vague about what 'intelligent reorganization' means and does not differentiate from sibling tools. It is not a tautology, but lacks specificity to earn a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_preserve_context' or 'update_index'. The description gives no context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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