duplicate_pie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool duplicates a pie and returns details, but does not elaborate on side effects, preservation of properties, or authentication needs. The return type is mentioned, but behavioral traits are only partially addressed.

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 concise with a clear structure: one-line summary, then Args list, then Returns. No redundant information, every sentence serves a 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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and return type. It lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral details, but is reasonably complete given the tool's straightforward nature.

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. The docstring provides brief meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'ID of the pie to duplicate'), adding context beyond the schema titles and types. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not include format or constraints.

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 'Create a duplicate of an existing pie,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_pie' (creates a new pie from scratch) and 'update_pie' (modifies existing). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'create_pie', 'update_pie', and 'delete_pie', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer.

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