sort_viewpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It covers sorting, counter recalculation, and the optional backup flag. It does not mention error conditions or stability of sorting, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details in bullet format. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient information about behavior, sorting logic, and parameter usage. It does not discuss return values, but for a modification tool this is acceptable. Minor omissions (error handling) prevent a perfect score.

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?

Context reports 0% schema description coverage, but the description explains two of three parameters ('folder' and 'backup') with clear semantics. The 'xml' parameter is not described, but being required and named suggests its purpose. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 sorts viewpoints in a file and recalculates counters. It explains the sorting order (leading number, suffix, non-numeric alphabetically) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's an ad-hoc scenario without needing a master.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (ad-hoc sorting, no master needed) and explains the effect of the 'folder' parameter (if set, sorts that folder; if not, sorts all). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools to guide selection.

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