working_set_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It uses non-mutating verbs ('check', 'recommend') implying a read-only/analytical operation. It adds behavioral context by citing Miller, Cowan, and Sweller, explaining the underlying decision rules. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made to the working set.

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 parenthetical citations. It is dense but not verbose, and it front-loads the main purpose. The citations add context without unnecessary wordiness, though they could be trimmed 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters. The description provides purpose and theoretical basis but omits parameter semantics and what the output looks like. It is adequate for a simple diagnostic tool but incomplete for full autonomous 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not clearly define 'limit', 'optimal', or 'capacity'. While the theoretical references hint at capacity concepts, there is no explicit mapping to the input parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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: check if working set fits working memory and recommend chunking. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'recommend') and identifies the resource ('working set'), distinguishing it from likely siblings like 'working_set' which probably modifies the set.

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?

It indicates when to use the tool: 'when overloaded'. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The inclusion of cognitive load theories implies usage for capacity assessment and planning.

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