rerank_passages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that reranking uses NVIDIA NIM models, but it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. The term 'rerank' implies a pure computation, but the description could be more transparent about expected behavior such as output format or whether the original order matters.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence is purposeful: the first states what it does, the second provides context for use. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the core purpose and a use-case hint (RAG pipelines), but it does not explain what the tool returns, how truncate or top_k affect results, or any constraints. While the schema covers parameter details, the lack of output information leaves a gap 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 already describes most parameters (model, query, top_k, truncate), leaving only 'passages' with no description. The tool description mentions 'query' and 'passages' but does not add meaningful semantics beyond naming them. It does not explain the oneOf structure for passages or clarify top_k behavior. With 60% schema coverage, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 reranks passages by relevance to a query, specifying the action (rerank), the resource (list of passages), and the technology (NVIDIA NIM models). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like text_generation and create_embeddings by focusing on reranking for retrieval quality. The mention of RAG pipelines further clarifies the intended use.

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 identifies a clear use case: 'Essential for RAG pipelines to improve retrieval quality.' This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclude other scenarios. The context is strong enough to guide an agent toward this tool for reranking tasks, though it lacks explicit alternative comparisons.

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