agent-reader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are permanent or reversible, or what happens if invalid values are provided. It mentions 'novice users' but doesn't explain how this differs from configuring preferences for other user types.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero wasted words or redundant information. Every word serves a distinct purpose in communicating 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after configuration (success/failure indicators), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal context about the relationship between the two parameters. The mention of 'novice users' creates ambiguity without clarification about how this affects the configuration.

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 schema already documents both parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying these parameters relate to 'default open behavior' and 'novice users,' but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how these parameters interact or what 'default open mode' specifically controls beyond what's in the schema.

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 action ('Set default open behavior') and target audience ('for novice users'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_user_preferences' beyond the obvious set vs get difference, nor does it explain what 'open behavior' specifically refers to in context of the available parameters.

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 the sibling 'get_user_preferences' tool for retrieving preferences, nor does it specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or appropriate contexts for setting user preferences versus other configuration tools.

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