iif_format

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

The description discloses that arguments are expression bodies (no leading '=') and that string literals must be pre-quoted, providing important behavioral context beyond the basic schema.

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 extremely concise with two focused sentences that convey the essential syntax and constraints without any extraneous 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers the key usage rules; it could mention the expected return value type, but overall it is fairly complete for its purpose.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the nature of the three parameters as expression bodies and providing a quoting example, adding significant meaning beyond mere type strings.

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 explicitly states it emits an IIf expression with a specific syntax, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that add or set report elements.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the description implies it is for generating IIf expressions in contexts where expression bodies are required.

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