wisdom_ground

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'analyze' and 'recommend,' but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what the output format might be (e.g., list of frameworks, explanations), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines without any unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 the tool's complexity (analysis and recommendation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output, which are important for a tool that likely returns recommendations. It is adequate for basic selection but could be more informative about what to expect from the tool's operation.

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, with the parameter 'situation' documented as 'The situation, decision, or concern to analyze.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage, examples, or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 purpose: 'Analyze a situation and recommend which philosophical framework(s) would be most helpful.' It specifies the verb ('analyze' and 'recommend') and resource ('situation' and 'philosophical framework(s)'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from all sibling tools beyond stating it's for when 'unsure which wisdom tool to apply.' This makes it clear but not fully distinct from siblings like 'wisdom_clarify' or 'wisdom_cognitive_bias_scan' that might also analyze situations.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when unsure which wisdom tool to apply.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools listed, making it easy for an AI agent to select this tool in the appropriate context without ambiguity.

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