Sibyl

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 mentions that the tool 'Researches the subject and produces a structured SWOT,' which implies it performs research and generates content, but it lacks details on how the research is conducted (e.g., sources, depth), whether it requires internet access, potential rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two sentences earn their place by defining the tool and explaining its behavior. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and there is minor redundancy in stating the parameter after the initial explanation.

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 complexity (research and structured output), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, but lacks behavioral details like research methodology or output format specifics. The output schema helps, but the description should provide more context for effective use without relying solely on structured data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'subject' parameter with examples ('Tesla', 'Canadian housing market', 'remote work trend'), clarifying it as 'What to analyze.' This provides useful context beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail constraints or formats. With only one parameter, the description adequately covers its semantics.

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: 'Generate a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats).' It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'SWOT analysis,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze,' 'research,' or 'compare' by focusing on this specific structured output format. The description is specific and unambiguous about what the tool produces.

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 usage through the phrase 'Researches the subject,' suggesting it should be used for analytical tasks requiring structured SWOT output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze' or 'research.' There is no guidance on exclusions or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name and purpose alone.

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