scout_intake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that it returns scout_login and scout_attach calls in order, falls back to returning questions for chat, never asks for a password, and touches no browser. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond a simple 'ask questions' framing, though the return payload shape is only sketched.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence ('Where this client can show a form, the person answers there and this returns the settings to use: the scout_login and scout_attach calls, in order') is dense and runs on. The content earns its place, yet the phrasing could be tightened without loss.

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 no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: either settings (scout_login/scout_attach calls in order) or a list of questions. It also covers the no-password and no-browser guarantees. Only the exact response structure remains slightly underspecified.

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% and there is a single optional parameter, so the schema already defines 'url' fully. The description adds only that the value pre-fills the form when the person has already stated the address, which is marginal beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ask the start-of-run questions') and enumerates what those questions cover (address, sign-in, what to check, real data). It also situates the tool relative to siblings by naming scout_login and scout_attach as its outputs, so an agent can tell it is the setup/intake step. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X' contrast, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It states a clear triggering condition: use it 'when the person gave no settings.' It also distinguishes the two execution paths (form vs. chat fallback) and when each applies ('otherwise, or when they decline or close the form'). No explicit when-not is given, but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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