embedding.quality

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral details (coverage, anomaly detection, drift detection) that go beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose potential side effects or limits.

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 extremely concise, using bilingual text with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose in Japanese and then in English, resembling a tagline format that is efficient for AI parsing.

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 description lacks information about return values or output format, which is critical since no output schema is provided. It also does not summarize default parameter behaviors, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invoking the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it merely restates the tool's high-level function without elaborating on how parameters affect behavior.

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 monitors embedding quality and runs coverage, anomaly detection, and drift detection for specific models (DINOv2/e5-base), providing a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like quality.evaluate.

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