Cold plunge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to describe what the tool actually does, what side effects occur, or what output to expect. It is entirely opaque, not even indicating whether it is a read or write operation.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with a catchy metaphor. It does not waste words, fitting the conciseness ideal. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity, but that is a content issue, not a structure issue.

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 and no output schema, so the description must fully explain its function. It does not. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what action to take, making the tool effectively unusable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is fully covered. Even though the description is vague, it does not hinder parameter understanding since there are none.

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 uses metaphorical language ('A bracing reset') and an imperative ('Drop assumptions and restate the real goal in one sentence') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It vaguely implies a goal-refocusing exercise but does not explicitly state what the tool does, and it does not distinguish it from sibling wellness tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'bracing reset' hints at a reset use case, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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