getGmatIdioms

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully describes the content and purpose, implying read-only behavior and no side effects. While it doesn't detail caching or access requirements, these are not critical for this simple retrieval tool.

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 a single sentence with embedded examples, effectively front-loading the purpose. While slightly long, every phrase adds value and no redundancy exists.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools focusing on other operations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and why it is useful, though it could hint at return format for completeness.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The description adds value by detailing the content returned, surpassing the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 tool returns a curated knowledge base of GMAT idioms and gotchas, with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (getGmatSample, listGmatSamples, runGmat, searchDocs) by focusing on preventing script errors.

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 explicitly advises reading this before writing GMAT scripts, providing clear context for use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling tools serve different purposes.

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