declare_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the tool creates, updates, or reads state, which is critical for a tool named 'declare'.

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 a single 11-word sentence, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity leaves out essential context, making it underinformative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters with no descriptions, the description should provide broader context such as return values, state changes, or typical usage. It does not, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies session state.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions) and the tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters, including the required 'sessionId', 'intent', and 'allowedTools'. The agent must guess their meaning from names alone.

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's action ('Declare session intent and allowed tools') and mentions the context ('intent-binding enforcement'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with trust or compliance but not intent declaration.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool is inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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