deescalation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output is step-by-step guidance calibrated to intensity and includes a safety boundary ('no coercive tactics'). However, it does not disclose return format, effects of intensity levels, or any limitations.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first states the main function, the second describes the output and safety boundary.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on output format (e.g., list, paragraphs) and does not explain how intensity calibrates the plan.

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 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that the output is calibrated to the intensity parameter, but this is a minor enhancement 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'structured de-escalation plan', and specifies the output is step-by-step guidance calibrated to conflict intensity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., accessibility audits, empathetic reframes), though it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 use for conflict or tense situations ('Generate a structured de-escalation plan for a conflict or tense situation') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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