akai_proxy

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

Without annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits, but it only states it is a 'shim' without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data handling. Critical transparency is missing.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose, fitting the typical style of a summary line. While very short, it avoids verbosity and earns its place, though could be slightly more structured.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and only two parameters, the description should provide more context about invocation, expected output, or use cases. It remains too minimal for a complete understanding.

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 descriptions for 'args' and 'stdin' are fully covered (100%), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as structure meets minimum requirements.

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 identifies the tool as an 'OpenAI-compatible API shim for Akai binaries,' which specifies its function and differentiates it from the many sibling tools that handle specific tasks. However, it does not use an action verb or provide a direct 'use this tool to...' statement, missing top marks.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specific Akai operator tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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