get_tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. The description adds that it is 'free' (potentially meaning no cost), which is an extra behavioral detail. However, it does not describe side effects, auth needs, or output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short (2 sentences), but the second sentence 'Free.' feels tacked on and provides no operational value. While brevity is good, this is under-informative rather than concise. The structure is flat and lacks context that would help an agent decide to call it.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and a vague description, it is incomplete. The agent cannot determine what kind of output to expect (text? structured data?). The description does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'rituals' and 'workflow tips', or how they relate to the therapy flow. A more detailed description is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It does not mention how parameters like 'topic' or 'response_mode' affect the tips. The description carries no parameter information.

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?

Description states it provides 'advanced rituals and workflow tips beyond the core therapy flow', clearly indicating a supplementary, tip-giving tool. The name 'get_tips' aligns well. However, it does not specify the format or scope of tips beyond being 'advanced'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_affirmation, which give positive statements, and get_temperament_profile, which gives a profile. Good but not perfect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'beyond the core therapy flow' implying it's for supplementary use, but no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use context. Among many sibling tools, there is no mention of other tip-like tools (e.g., get_affirmation) or how to choose.

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