example_tool

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. 'Processes messages' implies some operation but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. 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 sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal content and could benefit from more detail to improve utility without sacrificing brevity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for under-specification.

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 for a tool that 'processes messages'. It doesn't explain what 'process' means, the behavior, or the result, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively. This is inadequate for a tool with even one parameter and no structured support.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'message'. The schema already describes it as 'Message to process'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 the tool 'processes messages', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'processes' entails (e.g., filtering, transforming, analyzing) and doesn't differentiate from siblings (though none exist). This is a minimal viable description that states purpose but lacks specificity.

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, such as context, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no siblings, differentiation isn't needed, but it still lacks any usage context (e.g., 'Use this to clean up message text before storage'). This leaves the agent with no operational guidance.

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