tool_check_addressbook

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 states the tool diagnoses issues but does not specify what 'diagnose' entails—e.g., whether it performs read-only checks, requires permissions, returns error details, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence ('Diagnose AddressBook access issues.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly improved by adding context or usage hints, but it effectively conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 diagnostic nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the diagnosis returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves system checks, more context is needed to ensure the agent understands its operation and outputs.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, aligning with the rule for zero parameters.

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 'Diagnose AddressBook access issues' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('diagnose') and target ('AddressBook access issues'), avoiding tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tool_check_contacts' or 'tool_check_db_access', which might have overlapping diagnostic functions, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for diagnosing access issues, or refer to sibling tools for related tasks, such as 'tool_check_contacts' for contact-specific checks. This lack of usage context could lead to incorrect tool selection by an agent.

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