Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (tools with group assignment and active status) and the discovery purpose, which adds useful context. However, it does not cover aspects like performance (e.g., whether it's a heavy operation), error handling, or data freshness, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and its usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns and its purpose, but without an output schema, it does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of the tool list). For a discovery tool, more context on the output could enhance completeness.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given because the tool has no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, but it does not explicitly state the lack of parameters, preventing a 5.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns every known Wick tool with its group assignment and whether it is active in this process.' This specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('every known Wick tool'), and key attributes returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tool_groups' or 'tool_reset', which may have overlapping functionality, preventing a score of 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use to discover available functionality.' This suggests when to use the tool (for discovery), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it lacks comparison with 'tool_groups' or 'project_info', which might offer related information, leaving some ambiguity.

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