configure_detection

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent configuration tool. The description adds that it configures 'parameters and indicators', which aligns with the annotations but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like whether changes persist, require specific permissions, or affect system performance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 (6 parameters for configuration) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the configuration scope but doesn't explain what happens after configuration (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately, return values, or error conditions). With annotations covering basic behavioral hints, it meets baseline 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'loop detection parameters' and 'domain-specific progress indicators', which loosely maps to parameters like alternating_threshold, repetition_threshold, and progress_indicators, but adds no specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 configures 'loop detection parameters and domain-specific progress indicators', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_loop (which likely performs detection rather than configuration) and reset_engine (which likely resets rather than configures). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like get_monitoring_status or store_experience.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like detect_loop or reset_engine might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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