Wick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals that the tool is non-functional ('Not functional in v1'), explains its retention reason ('forward compatibility'), and mentions system behavior ('Wick resolves groups once at startup'). This adds valuable context beyond the empty input schema, though it doesn't detail potential future behavior or error handling.

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 front-loaded with key information ('placeholder for future dynamic group activation. Not functional in v1'), followed by explanatory details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality, current limitations, and retention rationale, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for a placeholder tool.

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 complete enough. It explains the tool's non-functional status, purpose, and compatibility role, which suffices for this context. However, it could briefly hint at what 'dynamic group activation' might involve to better guide future use, leaving a minor gap.

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 doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it implies future parameters might be added for 'dynamic group activation,' giving slight context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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 states the tool is a 'placeholder for future dynamic group activation' and 'not functional in v1', which clarifies its purpose as a non-operational forward compatibility stub. However, it's vague about what 'dynamic group activation' entails and doesn't specify what resource or action it will eventually perform, making it less distinct from siblings like 'tool_groups'.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'Not functional in v1' and 'Wick resolves groups once at startup from --groups or WICK_GROUPS.' It provides clear exclusion guidance, advising against current use due to lack of functionality, which is sufficient for a placeholder tool with no parameters.

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