get_analogy_reasoning_scaffold

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

Describes the tool as read-only and lists its output contents, which provides transparency about its non-destructive nature. However, without annotations, additional behavioral details such as idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements are absent. The description is adequate but could be more 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?

Two sentences concisely convey the tool's purpose, output contents, and limitations. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and output. It specifies what is returned and what is not done, making it complete for context.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by detailing the scaffold's components (checklists, steps, comparison guidance, uncertainty policy), which clarifies the nature of the returned content beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns a 'read-only method scaffold for analogy reasoning' and lists specific components it provides. Differentiates from sibling scaffolds by naming the reasoning type and explicitly stating it does not solve questions or select answers, which separates it from other reasoning tools.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use it ('does not solve questions or select an answer'), implying it is for scaffolding guidance only. While it does not name specific alternatives, the sibling tools list provides context for other reasoning scaffolds, guiding selection based on reasoning domain.

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