travaso_stato

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. It describes the information returned (counts of facts, files, instructions), implying a read-only status operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is non-destructive. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or rate limits. For a status tool, this is a moderate gap, but the description does convey the informational nature through 'stato' and the listed data points.

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, compact sentence (with a second short directive) that front-loads the core purpose ('Livello del serbatoio di memoria da travasare') followed by concrete details on what it reports. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place. The 'Chiamalo per primo' is an efficient usage hint appended at the end.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns and how to use it. It does both: it lists the types of information returned (remaining facts, absorbed facts, files, instructions) and gives a clear usage directive. It doesn't specify the exact format or fields, but for a simple status tool this is adequate. It could be more explicit about the read-only nature, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds value by clarifying the tool's output content (counts, files, instructions), which is beyond the schema's empty properties. This makes the description sufficient for parameter understanding.

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's function: it reports the level/status of the memory reservoir being transferred, including remaining facts, absorbed facts, files, and instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search, next, absorb, archive, restore) by being a status/overview tool rather than an action, and the 'Chiamalo per primo' (call it first) hints at its role as an entry point. However, it doesn't explicitly name the verb 'status' or 'state' in English, leaving some ambiguity in the phrase 'Livello del serbatoio'.

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 a clear usage directive: 'Chiamalo per primo' (call it first), which tells the agent to invoke this tool before others in the workflow. It implies that this is the initial step to assess the state before performing actions like absorb or search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the directive give sufficient context for when to use it.

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