bisect_good

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

The description discloses key behaviors: marking as good, narrowing bisection, enabling next subset, and resolving culprit when one node remains. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so adequately, though it could mention idempotency or prerequisite state.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. No redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and outcome. It could note that a bisection session must be active (implied but not explicit), but overall it's complete for its simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The context about what the tool does is sufficient.

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 action: 'Mark the currently enabled set of custom nodes as GOOD' and explains the overall purpose: narrows bisection and resolves culprit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bisect_bad by specifying the 'GOOD' nature.

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 explains when to use (problem absent with current set) and the expected workflow (narrows bisection, enables next subset). It does not explicitly exclude non-bisection contexts but provides clear usage intent relative to siblings.

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