getGmatSample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read ('Return the full text'), but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The 'seed a phase' hint adds mild context.

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, immediately front-loading the primary purpose. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how to identify the file, and a suggested use case. It feels complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 description adds meaningful examples showing filename format (e.g., 'Ex_SafetyEllipse.script') and supports the 'from listGmatSamples' hint, going beyond the schema's basic 'Sample file name' description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('NASA sample script'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it retrieves by file name from 'listGmatSamples'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 states to 'Use as a known-good template to seed a phase', providing a clear use case. It also implicitly advises that filenames come from 'listGmatSamples', but does not mention when not to use or alternatives like 'getGmatIdioms' or 'runGmat'.

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