octave_eject

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses key behavioral traits: supports multiple projection modes, output formats, template generation, and sections parameter with flexible matching and silent omission. Does not cover permissions or side effects but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic.

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?

Two effective sentences: first defines primary action, second summarizes modes, template generation, and output formats. No wasted words, information is front-loaded and accessible.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers all parameters and their behavior (modes, formats, sections, template generation). It lacks details on return values or error cases, but is sufficient for a conversion tool. Missing only minor context.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value by explaining modes (e.g., 'executive: STATUS,RISKS,DECISIONS'), format implications (gbnf exports llama.cpp GBNF grammar), and sections parameter behavior (flexible matching, silent omission). This enriches the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool ejects OCTAVE content with projection modes, listing specific modes and output formats. It distinguishes from siblings (compile_grammar, validate, write) by focusing on projection and conversion.

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 siblings. However, the description hints at template generation when content is null, providing some context. Lack of usage alternatives or exclusions reduces clarity.

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