advise_hard_drive_pick

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the counterfactual LP methodology, the per-objective delta reporting, and the baseline equivalence with plan_factory. These are meaningful behavioral details, though it does not mention side effects, permissions, or prerequisites.

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 moderately sized across three paragraphs. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the middle paragraph explaining objectives could be more concise. The third paragraph about sources is necessary but could be integrated more tightly.

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 description conveys the output style (per-objective deltas) and baseline behavior, but lacks details on the exact return format and the roles of save and world parameters. Given the tool's analytical complexity, a bit more structural detail would improve completeness.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'sources' parameter, noting it is plan_factory's selector list. Other parameters (save, world, hard_drive_id) are not described, leaving substantial gaps 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 states 'Rank one pending drive's options by marginal value, via counterfactual LP', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool as focusing on hard drive choice ranking, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_pending_hard_drive_choices or rank_unlocks.

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 implies usage when there is a pending hard drive choice, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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