switching_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. It mentions output as a 0-1 score but omits details on determinism, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, factors, and output format. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 description covers the output range and key factors, but lacks details on error handling, input constraints, or usage limits. With a simple tool and no output schema visible, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, requiring compensation. The description mentions 'domains' and 'switching between domains', which provides context for the two string parameters 'current_domain' and 'target_domain'. However, it does not define what constitutes a domain or provide examples, resulting in only minimal added meaning.

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 estimates cognitive switching cost, using specific verbs 'Estimate' and resource 'cognitive cost of switching between domains'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'cognitive_patterns' or 'context_recovery', which could overlap.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given 22 sibling tools including 'alignment_check', 'brain_stats', and 'cognitive_patterns', the description lacks usage context or exclusions.

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