toolfunnel_howto

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the purpose and enumerates topics, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, no side effects, or authentication needs. The behavior is implicit and adequate for a retrieval tool.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is necessary and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, available topics, and the context of extending the system. No additional information is needed.

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% and the schema includes a description of the topic parameter. The tool description adds context by grouping the topics under 'self-extension instructions', but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool returns self-extension instructions and lists the specific topics (create-tool, add-mcp, add-hook, package). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tools and run_tool by focusing on how-to guides for extending the system.

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 usage for obtaining extension instructions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_instructions. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, which misses an opportunity to disambiguate from siblings.

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