hl_extra_agents

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, whether authentication is required, or what the response contains. The description only states a static relationship ('linked to user') with no behavioral detail.

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 concise in length (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name, so it does not earn its place despite being short. It is not verbose, but it also adds little information.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what 'extra agents' are and in what context this tool should be used. With no usage guidelines, minimal parameter semantics, and a vague purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially given the large number of sibling tools.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'user' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'linked to user' hints that the 'user' parameter identifies whose extra agents are queried, but it does not explain the expected format (e.g., ID, address) or provide any further semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Extra API agents linked to user (extraAgents)' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lacks an action verb (e.g., 'Get', 'List') and does not clearly explain what 'extra agents' are or how the tool operates. It provides the resource (agents) and relation (linked to user) but is more of a noun phrase than a clear purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios in which this tool is appropriate. An agent is left without any context for correct selection.

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