get_test_recommendation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL and details, but does not describe error behavior, auth requirements, or the structure of 'details'. As a simple read operation, this is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it instantly scannable.

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 simple one-parameter getter tool, the description is nearly complete. It indicates what will be returned (test URL and details), and the sibling tools provide context. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about the 'details' structure would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter bias_id is well-described with an example. The description's mention of 'by its ID' aligns with the parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'test URL and details for a specific cognitive bias by its ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_supported_biases (which lists biases) and analyze_text_for_bias (which analyzes text) by focusing on retrieving a test recommendation for a given bias ID.

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 when a bias ID is known and you need its test URL/details, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or consider alternatives. Sibling names provide context but are not referenced, so guidance on choosing between tools is only implicit.

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