active_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool does 'not leak any credential,' a valuable security behavior. It also implies a read-only, non-destructive query. However, it does not mention what happens if the system is not configured or if the return format differs, leaving a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main question posed first. Every phrase earns its place: the list of dialects and the security guarantee are both essential. No redundant or verbose wording is present.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the possible return values, and a key behavioral aspect (no credential leakage). There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating the possible output values (sap_s4hana, netsuite, dynamics365), which clarifies what the tool returns. Since the input schema is empty, there are no parameter details to elaborate on, and the description provides sufficient context.

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: it identifies which ERP dialect is wired (sap_s4hana, netsuite, or dynamics365). The verb 'confirm' and specific resource ('modeled system') make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, which all handle domain operations like purchase orders or approvals.

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 implies the tool is used to verify the system before other operations, noting it 'lets a host confirm the modeled system.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear: this is a metadata/configuration tool, not for transactional workflows. A slight lack of explicit exclusion keeps it from a 5.

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