Metis — Institution Actions

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. It implies a read-only enumeration and hints that the result includes 'gaps', but says nothing about what happens if no institute pack is installed or how empty/partial packs are surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the trigger conditions, then the next step. Nothing is wasted and the routing instruction comes before the reader needs it.

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 zero parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description needs only to explain triggers and sequencing, which it does. The only gap is the unstated behavior when the researcher has no institute pack.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists the offered 'actions, templates, gaps' from the researcher's institute pack. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling institution_procedure by framing this as the discovery step versus the procedure-execution step.

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?

Gives explicit triggers — researcher mentions institute procedures or templates (ethics/IRB submission, institutional presentation or poster) or asks what the institute section can do. It also names the follow-up alternative, institution_procedure, and the condition that selects it.

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