evaluate_tile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that evaluation should 'include any calculations or pilot studies performed,' which hints at expected inputs, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., stores ratings, triggers notifications, updates tile status) or any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the tile or just logs evaluation). For a tool with potential write operations, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating evaluation criteria from input requirements). Every part earns its place, but it's borderline sparse for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after evaluation (e.g., returns a confirmation, updates a database), how ratings affect the tile, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely performs a write operation (evaluating implies storing data), more behavioral context is needed to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly (e.g., rating scales, timeframe format). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'impact, feasibility, and uniqueness' and 'calculations or pilot studies,' which map to parameters but don't provide additional context like how ratings are used or what constitutes valid calculations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate a leaf tile (concrete idea/project) on impact, feasibility, and uniqueness.' It specifies the verb ('evaluate') and resource ('leaf tile'), and mentions the three evaluation dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_tile' or 'update_tile' that might also interact with tiles.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a tile ID from 'get_tile'), compare it to similar tools like 'validate_split_quality' or 'get_coverage_analysis', or indicate when evaluation is appropriate (e.g., after tile creation vs. before splitting). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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