wisdom_stoic_dichotomy

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 philosophical framework (Epictetus's dichotomy) and use cases, but it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it provides analysis, advice, or structured output, or any operational details like response format or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (philosophical analysis with no output schema and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral output, return values, or deeper context needed for full understanding. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 one parameter 'situation' described as 'The situation, decision, or concern to analyze.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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: 'Apply Epictetus's dichotomy of control to separate what's in your power from what isn't.' This specifies the action (apply) and resource (dichotomy of control), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wisdom_stoic_premeditation' or 'wisdom_stoic_memento_mori' which might also involve Stoic philosophy.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use when feeling anxious about outcomes or uncertain what to focus on.' This gives practical guidance on the emotional or situational triggers, but it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'wisdom_clarify' or 'wisdom_cognitive_bias_scan' for similar concerns.

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