pir_sample

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

The description discloses important behavior: null on first call, cheap, and non-blocking. With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does not mention that each call updates the stored baseline sample (a side effect), nor does it describe the return value/score format. This is useful but incomplete.

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 zero filler. The core function is front-loaded, followed by practical use cases. Every clause 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?

The core function and use cases are clear, but significant gaps remain: the 'name' parameter is undocumented, the meaning of 'score' is vague, there is no output schema, and the side effect of updating the baseline is omitted. An agent cannot fully determine how to call this correctly or interpret the result.

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 0%, and the sole parameter 'name' is never explained in the description. There is no statement that 'name' identifies a previously defined region, nor any format guidance. The description refers to 'the region' but never links it to the input parameter, leaving the agent to guess its meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture the region once and score it against the previous sample of the same region.' It also clarifies the first-call behavior (null) and distinguishes itself from blocking siblings by emphasizing it is 'non-blocking.' An agent can understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from waiting or defining operations.

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?

Three concrete use cases are spelled out: check the capture command works, take a baseline, and ask 'did anything happen there since I last looked?'. These give clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond implying that blocking waits are different.

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