Elicit missing tool args

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool uses an LLM to propose values. This provides behavioral context not available from readOnlyHint and openWorldHint alone. However, it could further clarify how it uses the schema or handles failures.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function, with no wasted phrases.

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 that an output schema exists, the description is sufficient to convey the tool's basic operation. It does not explain the return format, but the output schema fills that gap. For a simple tool with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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's purpose: 'Use the schema + LLM to propose values for a tool call's missing required args.' It uses a specific verb ('propose') and resource ('tool call's missing required args'), and the sibling list contains no similar tool, so it is well-distinguished.

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 the tool should be used when a tool call has missing required args, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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