switch_modes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that it 'activates' modes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it replaces current modes, affects conversation state, or has side effects. The examples help but do not convey the impact on the agent's state.

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, short and front-loaded with the action 'Activates'. The examples are useful and do not waste space. It earns its place with minimal verbosity.

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 one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. However, since there is no annotation and the tool seems to affect mode state, additional context about expected mode names or effects would improve completeness. The output schema exists but is not shown; if it explains return values, the description need not.

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% for the only parameter 'modes', so the schema already explains it. The description adds context by showing example values ('editing', 'interactive', etc.), which enriches the parameter understanding beyond the generic schema description.

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 states a clear action ('Activates the desired modes') with specific resource ('modes') and examples ('editing', 'interactive', 'planning', 'one-shot'). While it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools, the verb 'activates' and mode names distinguish it from file/search/memory tools.

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 provides examples of when to use it (activating modes like editing/interactive or planning/one-shot), which implies its context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which is a minor gap.

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