ai_completion

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. However, the description does not disclose whether this tool has side effects (e.g., creates a record), is idempotent, or requires specific authentication. The behavioral traits are completely opaque.

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 extremely short (three lines) but fails to convey essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise; every line is present but not meaningful.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, whether it is safe to invoke, or how to interpret the response.

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 describes both parameters with brief descriptions ('(body) AI prompt identifier', '(body) Content for AI completion'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional context, but the schema itself is sufficient for understanding parameter purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 repeats the tool name ('A I Completion') and includes the HTTP method and path, but does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Generate an AI completion using a prompt'). It is vague and fails to distinguish from other tools like 'send_message' or 'get_ai_prompts'.

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 vs alternatives, such as 'get_ai_prompts' or 'send_message'. There is no mention of prerequisites like having a valid prompt_key or how the content is used.

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