Metis — Institution Procedure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose that output is a step-by-step procedure and that partial title matching is supported, which is useful. However it says nothing about what happens on an ambiguous or unmatched action, or whether multiple actions could match — gaps for a lookup tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the arg explanation is compact. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details needn't be explained. The description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning, but for a fuzzy-match lookup it leaves the failure/ambiguity behavior unexplained, which an agent would want to know.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the single 'action' parameter is an action id OR part of its title, with concrete examples like 'irb-request' and 'irb'. This adds meaningful partial-match semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the institute's procedure for one action') plus the intended use ('to be followed step by step'). It's clear, though it never names the related institution_actions sibling that presumably supplies valid action ids, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no pointer to institution_actions as the way to discover valid action ids. The only hint at usage is the example format ('irb-request' or 'irb'), which is an illustration, not a selection rule.

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