anomaly_of_the_week

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It reveals the output includes effects and resolutions and sets tone with 'classic TNG vibes.' However, it does not mention whether the output is random, how the severity parameter affects results, or the format of the response. This is adequate for a creative generator but leaves room for more detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose, output components, and stylistic flavor. No filler or redundant phrasing. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is generated and what the output includes (effects and resolutions). It does not mention the severity parameter or return format, but these are largely evident from the schema and the nature of generation. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 for the single optional 'severity' parameter is 100%, and the schema already includes an enum and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for this parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('a Star Trek space anomaly') and specifies what it produces ('effects on the ship and possible resolutions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other topics like battles or diplomatic scenarios.

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?

The description clearly implies its use case: when you need to generate a Star Trek anomaly with ship effects and resolutions. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the purpose is unmistakable and the context is unambiguous, it meets the bar for 4.

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