describe_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't state what is returned, error behavior for unknown tools, or any other runtime traits.

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 fragment, so it is concise but lacks a clear subject-verb structure and does not front-load the action. It is appropriately short but not optimally structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns (e.g., a schema and documentation object) and clarify the parameter's role. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented. The description implies the parameter is the tool name via 'of a utility tool,' but this is only an inference and not explicit, leaving the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 'Parameter schema and documentation of a utility tool' indicates the tool provides schema and docs, but it is a noun phrase without a clear verb and does not specify the resource as a tool name input. It does not distinguish from siblings like list_tools or get_capabilities.

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 given on when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites. The description provides no context to help an agent choose it over siblings such as list_tools or describe_operations.

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