simulate_poisoned_corpus

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

The description explicitly declares it is a stub not implemented in v0.5.0 and that it returns a clear not-implemented response. This is transparent about current behavior, though no annotations exist to contradict or supplement.

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 a single sentence with a stub note, front-loaded with the core action and a clear statement of current behavior. No unnecessary 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?

With no output schema and four undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly. Essential parameter details are missing.

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 0% and the description provides no information about the four parameters (e.g., dataset_path, corpus_path, poisoning_strategy, poison_ratio), leaving their meaning and usage entirely undocumented.

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 injects poisoned chunks into a corpus and re-runs retrieval evaluation, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on general evaluation or comparison.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The stub status is mentioned but not as usage advice.

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