edict_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Returns structured sponsorship and support information for the Edict project.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'structured sponsorship and support information' entails (e.g., format, content), behavioral traits like side effects or permissions, or how it fits into the broader Edict project context. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters.

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 purpose: 'Returns structured sponsorship and support information for the Edict project.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('sponsorship and support information'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edict_check' or 'edict_compile.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'edict_version' might also return info), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when support info is needed), or exclusions (e.g., not for debugging). With many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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