cigchat_openai_embeddings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required authorization scope and the HTTP method (GET), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering, response format, or whether the operation is safe/non-destructive beyond the GET method. This is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and endpoint, then adds the critical auth requirement. Both sentences earn their place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the purpose, endpoint, and auth requirement. The schema covers the filtering and pagination parameters. However, it could provide more context about the return structure or how this tool fits among the many embedding-related siblings (e.g., 'use this to list embeddings; use get_info for a single embedding'). Still, it is adequate for basic usage.

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 four parameters (page, text, limit, heading) have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema sufficiently documents the parameters. The description does not explain how the parameters interact or the purpose of 'heading' vs 'text', but that is not required given schema coverage.

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 operation: 'Get list of OpenAI Embeddings' with the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, generate, and get_info by explicitly indicating it returns a list. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'get_info', which could be ambiguous, but the word 'list' provides sufficient distinction.

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 a prerequisite (requires 'Manage Team' scope) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_info or create. It does not mention that this is the go-to for listing all embeddings or that filtering parameters are available. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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