Sense a disturbance in the Force

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool scans for keywords, returns an 'engage' flag, and that a true result should trigger a Darth Vader voice response. For a simple read-only detection tool, this is adequate transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences: the action, the trigger, and the conditional response. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, the return flag behavior, and the expected follow-up action. It could mention what happens when 'engage' is false, but that is reasonably implied.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'text' parameter as 'The text to scan — usually the user's message.' The tool description adds little beyond that, so the schema carries the parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan text for Star Wars keywords.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vader_speak and vader_quote, which are about speaking or quoting rather than detecting Star Wars content.

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?

It explicitly says when to call the tool: 'Call this on the user's message whenever Star Wars might have come up.' It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger condition is specific enough for an agent to apply correctly.

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