get_hint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'progressive hints' but does not explain what each hint level entails, any side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema adds depth descriptions, but the tool's behavior remains opaque.

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 short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information. Some verbosity to clarify 'progressive' would be beneficial.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple hint tool. However, it does not fully explain the progression of hints or integrate with sibling tool context.

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 description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. The 'hint_level' parameter has a description and default, but the tool description does not elaborate on usage specifics.

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 provides progressive hints for a problem, specifying the core function with a verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like generate_solution, but does not explicitly differentiate itself beyond naming.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_algorithm or generate_pseudocode. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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