akai_leapfrog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it performs a 'test', implying no destructive actions, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or behavioral traits beyond the test. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that includes the operator name, purpose, accepted inputs, and category. Every part is necessary and no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, metrics). For an agent to use the results, this information is critical. The input is clear but the output and further behavior are missing, making the description incomplete.

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% with descriptions for 'args' and 'stdin'. The description adds value by specifying accepted file types ('.bfq, .bfvec'), which are not in the schema. This helps the agent understand what arguments to pass. Loses a point because it does not elaborate on how to structure arguments or provide examples.

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 it is a 'Hamiltonian conservation and reversibility test', which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists accepted file types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'akai_physics', so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'category: inference' but does not specify contexts or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage without clear indications.

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