wisdom_stoic_premeditation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function ('visualize worst case scenarios') and intended outcome ('reduce fear and prepare mentally'), but lacks details on implementation (e.g., how visualization is structured, output format, or any limitations). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could offer more behavioral context.

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 front-loaded and efficient, consisting of two sentences that directly convey purpose and usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., how the visualization works). The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to cover return values, keeping it adequate.

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 'fear' well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 with a specific verb ('visualize worst case scenarios') and resource ('fear'), and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing the Stoic concept 'premeditatio malorum'. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the psychological benefit ('reduce fear and prepare mentally').

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when worried about potential failures'), providing clear context for its application. This directly addresses the agent's decision-making by linking the tool to a specific emotional state, which is helpful given the sibling tools focus on different wisdom practices.

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