embed

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions cost savings and privacy but fails to disclose output format, rate limits, or any destructive/reversible behavior. For a delegated operation, more detail is needed.

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, each purposeful. The caps-lock phrase 'DELEGATED EMBEDDINGS' is slightly distracting but not harmful. The description is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No output schema, yet description does not explain return values (e.g., shape of embeddings). With array input and multiple providers, the output semantics are non-trivial and should be clarified. Missing information limits completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying input types ('single string or array') and the default behavior for the provider parameter. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it generates embeddings by offloading to a local runtime, using verbs like 'offload' and 'embedding generation'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete' (text generation) and model management 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 provides guidance on the optional provider argument defaulting to the first detected provider, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not compare with siblings like 'complete' or other embedding options.

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