align

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects, requirements, or what 'align' does in terms of output or state changes. The description is too terse to provide adequate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It is concise but not overly terse to the point of being a tautology. However, it could be more informative without losing 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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. However, the description does not fully convey the alignment behavior or context, making it average in 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own property descriptions. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Aligns one selection to another' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes alignment from similar operations like superposition or fitting, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is a clear, plain-language statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'super' or 'intra_fit'. The schema hints at usage (e.g., target stays put), but the description itself offers no explicit adoption criteria or exclusions.

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