ouroboros_qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format ('structured verdict with score, differences, and actionable suggestions') and the intended iterative loop usage. However, it does not mention side effects like session creation when qa_session_id is omitted, which is a behavioral nuance in the schema.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, then explains the output and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return shape and intended usage context without needing to describe every parameter. It could offer slightly more detail on threshold/iteration history, but schema covers these, so this is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema by mentioning artifact types and quality bar, but it does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases beyond what parameter descriptions already state.

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 with a specific verb ('Evaluates') and resource ('any artifact type'), enumerating examples like code, API responses, documents, screenshots, and custom artifacts. It also specifies the output ('structured verdict with score, differences, and actionable suggestions'), distinguishing it from general-purpose helpers.

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 says it is 'General-purpose' and 'Designed for iterative loop usage', giving a clear context for when to use it. It lists supported artifact types but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top level of guidance by not naming when not to use it.

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