sch_check_power_flags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'check whether... appear to be flagged,' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'flagged' means, or any potential side effects. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about 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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It contains no extraneous words and communicates the core purpose efficiently. This is an example of appropriately sized, well-structured text.

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?

While the tool is simple (0 params, output schema exists), the description omits context about what 'common power nets' refers to and what constitutes being 'flagged.' The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of usage context and behavioral details leaves the description only minimally 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. The schema trivially covers all (zero) parameters, so no gaps exist.

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 function: checking whether common power nets appear to be flagged. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('common power nets'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling check tools, though the focused topic (power flags) provides some distinction.

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 alternative checks, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no context suggesting specific scenarios where this check is appropriate, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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