sapiens_meta

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: login saves a 30-day local session, version does not require login, start behaves differently depending on login state, and subscription emits low/critical warnings. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does it well.

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 content is dense and every phrase adds value, but it is structured as one long run-on paragraph with deep parentheses, making it harder to parse. A bulleted list or per-action sentences would improve scannability. It is informative but not concise in format.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the key outputs for whoami, subscription, health, and version, and by giving usage warnings for quota checks. A few actions like logout, formats, and app_url are only briefly named, but their behavior is fairly self-evident given the overall utility 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?

The description adds significant meaning to both parameters. It explains what each action enum value does, and it clarifies the code parameter format (XXXX-XXXX) and when it applies (action=login). The schema itself only documents code with a short note and lists enum values, so the description fully compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as transversal utilities and enumerates each action (start, login, logout, whoami, credits, subscription, formats, health, version, app_url) with a specific purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action-level detail differentiates it from the content-generation siblings.

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 concrete usage timing: use credits/subscription before generating images to warn about quota exhaustion, and use version to detect whether the client is stuck with cached npx code. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the meta/utility nature is clear from the action list.

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