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

The description simply states 'report,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys. It does not disclose what 'readiness' entails, whether it is costly to invoke, or any other operational details.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key subjects, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not clarify the report's format or the specific meaning of 'readiness.' It leaves some ambiguity about what consumers can expect from the returned status.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description is not required to elaborate on parameter semantics. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Report') and clearly identifies the three resources covered (local history, index, and runtime readiness). It meaningfully distinguishes this from sibling tools like index_workspace or search_history, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 implies using this tool to check the status of local history, index, and runtime readiness, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. It is adequate but lacks direct comparative context.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context about resolving IDs within a workspace, but does not disclose potential edge cases, return behavior, or effects of the global_scope parameter. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key terms ('opaque', 'requested workspace') are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves room for ambiguity about what 'resolve' returns and how errors are handled. It also does not address the global_scope option's effect on behavior. The tool is simple enough that the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 67%, and the description aligns with the evidence_ids and workspace parameters by mentioning 'evidence IDs' and 'requested workspace'. The global_scope parameter is left to the schema, which adequately describes it. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter-level explanations.

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's action: resolving opaque evidence IDs within a specified workspace. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, which involve status, indexing, history, and pin management.

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 implies usage when opaque evidence IDs need to be resolved inside a workspace, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any preconditions or exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., mutation, overwriting), required permissions, or what 'allowed workspace' means. The phrase 'Index visible Codex task messages' is a high-level summary without behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no irrelevant words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Index' and clearly states the object and scope. This is appropriately concise.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of three parameters with partial schema coverage, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain expected outcomes, side effects, or usage context, leaving the agent without sufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 67% (workspace and global_scope have descriptions), but the tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain 'force' or the conditions for 'global_scope.' The description merely echoes 'workspace' implicitly, failing to compensate for the undocumented 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 the verb 'Index' and identifies the resource as 'visible Codex task messages' for 'an allowed workspace,' which is a specific action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_history or list_pins, though not explicitly. Minor ambiguity remains about what 'index' entails, but it is not a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the workspace is allowed, or context like using this before search_history. It lacks any explicit or implicit usage direction beyond the basic action.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' action is consistent with that. It adds useful context about historical pinned tasks but does not disclose potential output shapes, permission requirements, or behavior when no pins exist.

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 defining the tool's function.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a clear read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It leaves some ambiguity about return format and exact semantics of 'preferred councillors,' but not enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 no additional meaning to the 'workspace' or 'global_scope' parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('historical Codex tasks pinned as preferred councillors'), making it distinct from sibling tools like set_pin. It communicates both action and object without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_history or set_pin. The description does not explain the relevance of global_scope or why listing pins might be preferable to other history queries.

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

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

The read-only annotation covers safety, and the description adds a filtering behavior ('evidence-backed'), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as workspace scoping or the effect of global_scope. It doesn't contradict the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the action verb.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse; it fails to specify what constitutes a valid 'question', the meaning of workspace scope, or expected return values, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters. With only 50% schema coverage, the 'question' and 'limit' parameters are not defined in either the schema or description, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'evidence-backed councillors in local history', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_evidence or council_status. However, it could be more explicit about what inputs drive the search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like council_status or get_evidence; the description offers no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the thread is not indexed. The term 'indexed historical' adds minimal context but not enough to understand the tool's 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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no waste, but it is extremely brief given the tool's parameter count and lack of annotation support. Still, for what it attempts, it is concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify the meaning of 'indexed historical', the role of global_scope, or any return behavior. A user cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly from the description alone, especially concerning edge cases like unindexed threads or workspace scope.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail. Schema coverage is 50% (workspace and global_scope have descriptions; pinned and thread_id do not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving thread_id and pinned undefined beyond their names. It only trivially maps 'pin/unpin' to the pinned boolean.

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 action ('Pin or unpin') and the resource ('an indexed historical Codex task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pins (which lists pins) and index_workspace (which indexes workspaces). The verb+resource construction is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_pins is the appropriate tool for viewing pins, nor does it describe any prerequisites like being indexed. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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