llama_infill

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only (generation without side effects), nor does it cover potential issues like model availability, latency, or slot requirements. For a generation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extra fluff, earning its place.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has required parameters, the description lacks information about return values, output format, or usage constraints. It does not help the agent understand what to expect from the tool or how to interpret results, leaving 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 5 parameters. The description adds a general context that the input_prefix and input_suffix are used for fill-in-middle, but it does not enhance the meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 'Code completion with prefix and suffix context (fill-in-middle)' clearly states the verb (code completion) and the specific resource (code with prefix and suffix). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'llama_complete' by highlighting the fill-in-middle functionality, though it could be more explicit about the exact 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'llama_complete' or 'llama_chat'. The description implies it is for completing code where prefix and suffix are available, but it does not explicit state when to prefer this tool or exclude other contexts.

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