newton_propose_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns either a schema-valid contract or a failure carrying raw model text and validation errors, and it never guesses, defaults, or partially fills a contract. It still omits anything about permissions, rate limits, or model/network failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and end with the key non-execution guarantee. It is appropriately sized, though 'calling Newton C with a strict JSON system prompt' is implementation detail that is slightly less essential to a caller.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is covered by annotations and the description. But with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no compensating parameter guidance, the definition is incomplete for actually invoking the tool correctly.

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% for six parameters (model, json_events, text_events, allowed_goals, max_new_tokens, observation_id), so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly alludes to observation input and the 'Newton C' model, but explains none of the individual parameters or their formats, so an agent cannot tell what to pass for most fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose exactly one validated Physical Action Contract from a physical-world observation'), and clarifies the boundary that it proposes but does not execute or authorise. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings (analyze_image, embed_timeseries, query), but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 phrase 'from a physical-world observation' implies the input context and usage setting, and the no-execution statement scopes it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative sibling tools, leaving routing to inference.

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