detect_divine_agency_without_speech

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'CRITICAL' and describes the core detection logic (separating speech vs. action verbs), but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'detection result'. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (CRITICAL notice, domain-agnostic note, examples, args, returns). It's front-loaded with key information and uses bullet points for readability. While efficient, the 'CRITICAL' label might be slightly dramatic without supporting context, but overall it avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (detection logic with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return at a high level. However, with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (e.g., how detection works algorithmically, error cases), making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive for safe use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists and briefly explains all three parameters (segment_id, agent_patterns, domain_vocabulary), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics like format examples for agent_patterns or domain_vocabulary structure, leaving some ambiguity for implementation.

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: detecting when agents act without speaking by separating speech verbs from action verbs. It provides specific examples (Biblical 'God remembered Noah', Legal 'the Court ruled'), making the function concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'identify_speaker' or 'detect_performatives', which might have overlapping domains.

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 context through examples (Biblical, Legal domains) and mentions it's 'DOMAIN-AGNOSTIC' with dynamic agentPatterns, suggesting flexibility across contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'identify_speaker' or 'detect_semantic_frames', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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