supportive_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool generates a reply, includes escalation guidance, and is non-clinical. It does not disclose side effects or internal behavior, but for a text generation tool, this is adequate and does not contradict any annotations.

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, front-loading the core purpose and following with specific details about modes and boundaries. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, modes, risk calibration, and safety boundary. It could benefit from stating the output format, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the context of support modes (general, presence, practical, reflection) and how risk_level influences escalation guidance, going beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'a supportive, non-clinical reply'. It mentions specific support modes (general emotional support, grief-specific: presence, practical, reflection) and distinguishes from clinical support via a safety boundary, making it distinct from sibling tools like deescalation_plan or empathetic_reframe.

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 provides clear context: use for non-clinical support in distress, with escalation guidance calibrated to risk level. The safety boundary explicitly excludes clinical use and mandates escalation for elevated risk. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for high-risk or clinical scenarios.

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