doxa_way_movement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates 'Get' (read-only) and explains the behavior of returning all nine movements or one if specified. No further side effects or prerequisites need disclosure for this simple retrieval tool.

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 efficiently convey purpose, content, and usage. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple nature (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. It meets the needs of an AI agent selecting this 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?

The parameter 'movement' is fully described in the schema with an enum and a description. The description adds important context: if absent, returns all nine movements, which supplements the schema and clarifies 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the nine movements of The Doxa Way, listing them and indicating it can return all or a single movement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this specific framework.

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 suggests specific use cases like faith journey mapping and spiritual growth, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling names imply different purposes.

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