arpe_quick_start

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Does not execute anything,' reinforcing the safe, read-only nature. It also describes the return behavior (recommended tool, params, sequence), providing transparency beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence is informative. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (routing/guide) and full coverage of parameters, the description completely explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No output schema is necessary as the return is described textually.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining use_case as 'plain English description' and product as 'override auto-detection', which aids interpretation beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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: to determine which Arpe.io tool to use and provide a step-by-step workflow guide. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling execution tools by being non-executing and advisory.

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 says to call this when the user's intent is unclear or they are new, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the context with sibling tools implies use this for routing and specific tools for execution.

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