Nudge a stuck agent

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

The description is transparent about the primary behavior: it returns a nudge rather than performing the task, and it specifies the nudge's 'concise, structured' form and themes. With no output schema and annotations that provide no positive safety signal, this is meaningful disclosure, though side effects and session-state behavior are not addressed.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Return'), the deliverable ('recovery nudge'), and the key content directives. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or duplicated schema 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 definition is adequate for a simple text-generation tool with fully documented parameters and a clear title. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, usage timing, and an output-format preview, so an agent choosing among the six siblings gets only partial context.

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%, with clear descriptions for task, context, and sessionId, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of reassessment and changed approaches hints at how context might be used but adds no concrete parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 deliverable—a 'concise, structured recovery nudge'—and defines its content emphasis (reassessment, minimal checks, changed approaches), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like diagnose or retry, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the title and the task parameter describe an agent that is stuck, and context mentions failed assumptions. However, the description never says when to prefer stimulate over diagnose, reuptake, focus, retry, or fix_me, nor does it offer exclusion conditions.

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