wisdom_auto_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool selects a preset, returns encoding instructions, and provides concrete performance metrics for each preset. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is stateless or has side effects, but the 'return encoding instructions' phrasing implies a non-mutating compute operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and selection logic; the second provides useful preset benchmarks. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main needs: what the tool does, what inputs influence it, and what general result to expect. The return format is only described as 'encoding instructions,' which is somewhat vague, but the preset table and selection logic are enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between fragment_type/context_pressure and transformer selection, and by naming the available presets with compression and quality stats. It doesn't discuss preset_override, but the schema covers that parameter's role.

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's action: automatically select the optimal transformer and return encoding instructions. It distinguishes itself from manual transform tools like wisdom_transform_to_fragment and wisdom_transform_from_fragment by emphasizing automatic selection based on fragment_type and context_pressure.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when automatic transformer selection is desired based on fragment type and context pressure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'automatically select' framing makes the intended use case reasonably clear.

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