sun_tzu

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') and the content ('13 chapters'), but does not explicitly describe the return format or any variations in behavior (e.g., chapter selection or concept search). For a read-only retrieval tool the risk is low, yet the description leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is returned, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and resource; the second adds valuable context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of a full output schema and two well-documented optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what the text is, its relevance, and its domains of application. Minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly stating default behavior for 'chapter=0', but the schema covers that. The description is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'chapter' and 'concept' are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions '13 chapters' which aligns with the chapter parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the specific resource and action: 'Get Sun Tzu's Art of War' with the distinct scope of 13 chapters. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming this unique text and by adding contextual positioning, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context by listing application domains ('competitive analysis, negotiation, organizational strategy'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. This is sufficient context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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