FleetQ

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable behavioral detail that download returns a URL, but omits safety profiles (destructive vs read-only), rate limits, or error behaviors that would be critical for an artifact management tool without annotation hints.

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?

Single efficient sentence with dense parenthetical enumeration of actions and their parameters. No redundant text, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse than sentence-broken alternatives.

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?

Adequate for a multi-action tool with 8 well-documented schema parameters, but gaps remain given no output schema and empty annotations. The description does not address potential side effects or auth requirements expected for artifact management tools.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds significant value by mapping specific parameter combinations to actions (e.g., content requires version, list requires experiment_id/project_run_id), clarifying relationships not explicit in the flat schema required field list.

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?

Clear resource (experiment/workflow artifacts) and verb (manage), with specific actions enumerated (list, get, content, download). Distinguishes from siblings like experiment_manage by targeting artifacts specifically, though 'manage' is slightly generic.

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?

Implicit usage guidance provided through action-parameter mapping (e.g., list uses experiment_id or project_run_id), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools like experiment_manage or workflow_manage that might also handle artifacts.

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