sit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing beyond the verb itself: no state change, prerequisites (e.g., must be standing), interruption effects, or interaction with other actions. This is the same level of disclosure as a bare 'Process' description.

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?

At two words, it is front-loaded and free of bloat, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful sense. It adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name, so the brevity reflects a lack of content rather than efficient communication.

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 simple action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits the information an agent needs: whether sitting is always permitted, what state it changes, and how it relates to 'stand' or movement. It is not complete enough to invoke reliably without guessing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool starts at baseline 4. The schema coverage is also 100%, so no compensation is needed.

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 names a specific action verb ('sit'), making the tool's basic function clear, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like 'stand', 'walk', or 'face', which are the likely alternatives an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent is left to infer that 'stand' is the inverse and that this tool is only valid in certain states.

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