Scheme With Minion

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and non-mutating. The description adds that the tool returns 'full-intensity Minionspeak by default,' which is a behavioral detail not captured by annotations. However, it doesn't clearly explain how the mood, intensity, and translation parameters interact with the roleplay output beyond a brief hint. Since annotations handle the safety profile, the description is adequate but not overly rich.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary use case. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines scope and context, second sentence clarifies default behavior and sibling tool alternative. It is concise but could be slightly more structured, e.g., by separating the bans from the functional details. Still, it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and boundaries.

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?

Given the presence of a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description does not need to document return values or safety. The tool has 4 parameters (1 required), simple enums, and no nested objects – moderate complexity. The description covers the roleplay domain, sibling differentiation, and default behavior. However, it doesn't mention that the output will be styled as Minionspeak regardless of mood or intensity, nor does it clarify if the mood parameter affects the translation. Minor gaps, but overall complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including descriptions for 'message', 'mood', 'intensity', and 'include_translation'. The description adds that the tool is for roleplay and that the default output is Minionspeak, which provides context for how parameters like 'intensity' and 'include_translation' are used. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between mood and intensity, nor does it specify the expected tone of the message input. Baseline 3 is fair since schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the tool is for 'Evil Boss banter, greetings, celebrations, dramatic scheming, and roleplay about any topic that does not require app verification, source research, or a bun hunt.' It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by listing what it's not for, and the title 'Scheme With Minion' reinforces the purpose. The verb 'returns full-intensity Minionspeak by default' specifies the output behavior.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (banter, roleplay) and when not to use it (app verification, source research, bun hunt). It also explicitly recommends using a sibling tool ('use the specialized Minion tool instead') for operational work. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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