fluig_user_replacements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' (read behavior) and 'explains' (adds context), which is helpful but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether data is real-time or cached. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not thorough.

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 long, each conveying essential information. It is front-loaded with the main action ('List configured user replacements') and immediately provides what the user gets (who, how long, why). No redundant words.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual output well. It could be enhanced by mentioning whether the list is paginated or sorted, but overall it sets accurate expectations.

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% with the single optional 'limit' parameter described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies. No parameter details in the description itself.

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 it lists configured user replacements, explaining who answers for whom and for how long, and why a task landed on someone else. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user replacements'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, as no other tool focuses on this functionality.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the purpose is specialized enough that usage is implied: you would use it to understand user replacements or task delegation. No alternatives are mentioned, but no sibling tool duplicates this function, so the lack of explicit guidelines is a minor gap.

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