recommend_cpu_arch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions cost and performance considerations but fails to disclose what the tool returns (e.g., single choice, comparison), whether it requires additional inputs, or any other behavioral traits. This minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 concise sentences, no wasted words, and immediately front-loaded with the tool's core function.

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 output schema, the description should hint at the return format or additional details. It only says 'recommends' but doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., architecture name, reasoning). The tool is moderately complex (2 params, enums) but the description leaves substantial gaps.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds general context about cost and performance but does not elaborate on how parameters influence the recommendation beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool recommends CPU architecture (ARM/x86) based on workload characteristics, considering cost and performance. The verb 'recommend' and resource 'CPU architecture' are specific, and the tool is distinct from all listed siblings.

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 implies usage for workload-based architecture decisions but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. Siblings are unrelated, so no confusion, but the lack of explicit guidance limits the score to 3.

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