Focus the next actions

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

Annotations provide no positive behavioral hints (all false), so the description itself must convey behavior. It does state the transformation and output nature, but it does not disclose aspects like whether actions are executed, how sessions affect behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and expected output without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does indicate the return shape ('sequence of concrete, verifiable next actions'), which helps. However, it lacks guidance on how the tool relates to the provided sessionId/context and does not address when it should be preferred over sibling tools, leaving some practical gaps.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, hitting the baseline expected when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb ('reduce') and resource ('a complicated task') and states the output: 'a short, prioritized sequence of concrete, verifiable next actions.' This clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like diagnose or retry.

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 implies the tool should be used when a task is complicated and needs to be broken into manageable next actions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and does not mention any exclusions or sibling tools.

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