deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns an IntentStub and is not implemented, leaving no ambiguity about its non-functional nature. This is honest and explicit.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the honesty about being a stub. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or unnecessary detail, making it optimally concise.

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 stub tool, this description is complete. An agent needs to know only that it is not implemented and what it returns (IntentStub), both of which are provided. No further context is required to avoid misuse.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist.

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 explicitly states the tool is a stub and that invoking it returns an IntentStub. This clearly defines its behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform real operations. While it doesn't detail what a full deployment would do, it accurately conveys its role as a placeholder.

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 implies the tool should not be used ('Not implemented'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it or what alternatives to choose. An agent is left to infer that it is a stub and should be avoided, without being directed to a suitable sibling tool.

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