exposure_baseline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does explicitly state that the tool does not mutate the graph, which is valuable. However, it does not describe what 'measure' returns, what 'sealed' implies about allowed inputs, or any error or side-effect behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning: the action, the object, and the non-mutating guarantee.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a generic object parameter, this description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain the output format, how 'baseline' differs from the sibling tools, or what constraints a 'sealed exposure graph' imposes.

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 description only identifies the parameter as a 'sealed exposure graph' without explaining its required shape or how to construct it. This adds some domain meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema documentation on a nested object parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('sealed exposure graph'), and adds the important qualifier 'without mutating it,' which clarifies the operation's intent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools exposure_simulate and exposure_rank, but 'measure' is reasonably distinct from those verbs.

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 minimal context ('sealed exposure graph') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus exposure_simulate or exposure_rank, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name rather than the description.

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