rank_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key output trait—probabilities per option rather than an opinion—and the 255-option cap. However, it does not discuss behavior when context is empty, whether state is changed, or error handling, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 opens with the core action, uses short purpose and use-case paragraphs, and closes with one-line parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 narrow 3-parameter ranking tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The main gaps are not explicitly stating the consequence of omitting context and not naming when a sibling tool would be a better choice.

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?

All three parameters receive a plain-language gloss: options are capped at 255 choices, criterion is a plain statement, and context is what options are judged against. This is necessary because the schema has no descriptions, though examples of well-formed criterion/context strings would make it stronger.

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?

States the exact operation ('Rank a list of options against one criterion, in a single call') and gives concrete use cases such as choosing a file or reordering search results. It does not reference sibling tools, but the verb+resource are specific enough to make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly frames when to prefer this tool over asking a chat model to sort ('Cheaper and faster') and names appropriate scenarios. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, but the guidance is actionable and clear.

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