quantity-takeoff__describe_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Return...') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, safe, or idempotent. The description lacks behavioral details such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 sentence with a bracketed module context prefix. It is concise and front-loaded with domain information. However, the bracketed phrase is somewhat cryptic and could be integrated more naturally.

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 output schema, the description provides a list of returned items (capabilities, version, etc.) which gives a high-level understanding. However, it does not describe the structure or format of the return value, and could be more explicit about the response type. For a simple describe tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not conflict with the schema and adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 tool returns 'fleet-standard capabilities, version, pack digest, disclaimer, composition role, and pricing', which gives a specific verb and resource. The module context is provided via the bracketed phrase, distinguishing it from other describe_agent tools through the module prefix, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate from 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative describe_agent tools or other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use.

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