scholarly-mode-stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns a systemPrompt, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not explain what 'scholarly mode' entails, what side effects occur (e.g., losing scholarly context), or whether the tool requires any permissions. Transparency is adequate but could be richer.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential information about the return value. No extraneous words, every sentence is valuable.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description sufficiently covers its purpose and output. However, it does not explain the concept of 'scholarly mode' or how it relates to sibling tools like 'scholarly-mode-start'. For a complete context, some reference to the start tool or mode semantics would be helpful, but the description is still adequate for a minimal 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the return value (systemPrompt). This helps an agent understand the tool's output, which the schema does not address. Scores above baseline 3 due to added value.

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: 'Stop scholarly mode'. It uses a specific verb 'stop' and resource 'scholarly mode', and distinguishes itself from its sibling 'scholarly-mode-start' by being the inverse operation. No confusion about its purpose.

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 some usage context by mentioning the returned systemPrompt to use when not in scholarly mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., just ignoring scholarly mode) or mention any prerequisites or conditions. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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