About TILLA

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: no API key is required to call it. It says nothing about the form of the response (text vs structured), which would matter with no output schema.

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 short front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the content of the tool first, the access precondition second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-param informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what topic coverage to expect and that no credential is needed. The only missing piece is whether the result is prose/markdown or structured data, which would help an agent decide how to consume it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading param claims are present.

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?

States a specific, understandable purpose: what TILLA is, who it's for, and how to get started. It reads as an introductory/onboarding resource, which is clear enough to select, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tilla_docs, which plausibly covers overlapping documentation.

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?

'How to start' implies an onboarding use case, and 'No API key needed' hints that it's safe to call before authenticating. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus tilla_docs or tilla_status, and no stated exclusions.

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