focus_directives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this is a read or a mutation, whether case_id is required, or what is returned. 'Directives learned' leaves the agent guessing about the operation entirely.

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?

It is one short phrase, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a four-word description, an agent has essentially nothing to decide whether or how to call this tool. Completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter case_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the parameter or explains what a case ID selects, so it compensates for none of the coverage gap; only the self-evident parameter name saves it from a 1.

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 is a noun phrase fragment ('Directives learned from competitor gaps') with no verb and no stated action. It gestures at a resource but an agent cannot tell whether this reads, computes, or returns directives, nor how it differs from siblings like run_case or monitor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternative to use. The sibling list (list_cases, run_all, monitor, run_case, memory_recent) offers no routing signal from the description.

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