Discover quality dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these by revealing the output specifics: 'Returns the inferred weights and the discovery-walk trace,' and reinforces the non-ranking behavior. This provides useful additional context without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key caveat, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and conveys the essential facts efficiently.

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 a single parameter, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, leaving no significant gaps.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is already detailed, explaining both the input and its purpose. The tool description adds no additional semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show') and resource ('quality dimensions'), clearly stating the tool's function. It explicitly says 'WITHOUT ranking any models,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like rank and pick, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'Useful for understanding how XFMS interprets the purpose before committing to a pick.' It also states a when-not-to-use condition ('WITHOUT ranking any models'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for ranking, instead implying 'pick' as a subsequent step, so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives.

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