geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar_offset

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the critical behavior: it does not write, and it returns applied=false. This is unusually transparent for a no-op tool and prevents an agent from mistakenly expecting a mutation.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the most important signal ('Legacy planning only') and then states the key behavioral consequence. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no wasted or repetitive text.

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 the no-op behavior is clear and an output schema exists, the tool has 13 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'deferred patch arguments' are, which parameters are meaningful in planning mode, or how the agent should set them. An agent could call this tool but would not fully understand the intended planning workflow.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'patch arguments plus offsets' as a collective group. It does not explain any of the 13 individual parameters, their relationships, or which ones matter for the deferred planning behavior. This is insufficient given the schema's total lack of descriptive content.

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 a specific behavior: capture deferred patch arguments plus offsets and return applied=false without writing. It clearly signals this is a legacy planning-only variant, which differentiates it from the active patch tool among the siblings, though it never names the alternative and 'capture' remains slightly ambiguous.

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?

'Legacy planning only' implies this should be used solely for planning and not for applying real patches, but the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or which sibling should be used instead. The usage context is implied rather than stated with clear alternatives or exclusions.

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