example_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Processes messages' implies some operation but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined, making it hard for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it earns high marks for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'processes' entails, the tool's behavior, or expected outcomes. For a tool with one parameter and no structured context, the description should provide more operational details to guide effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'message' parameter is documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples.

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 states the tool 'processes messages', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'processes' means (e.g., filtering, transforming, analyzing) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'data-processor' or 'api-client'. The purpose is clear enough to understand the general domain but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools. Without this information, an AI agent must guess based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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