allocate_attention

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'dynamically allocate attention' without explaining side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what 'attention' entails. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the core action and basis. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it could be improved by adding more structure or bullet points for readability, though it remains efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, one nested, one enum, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools like 'update_attention' and 'get_attention_stats', the description fails to explain return values, error behavior, or how this tool relates to others. It leaves the agent without enough context to confidently invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no clarification on format or constraints for 'node_ids' or 'context' fields). It restates the overall purpose but offers no additional semantics.

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 allocates attention to specific nodes based on context and cognitive load theory. The verb 'allocate' and resource 'attention to nodes' provide a specific action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_attention' or 'get_attention_stats', and 'nodes' is undefined.

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, such as 'update_attention' or other analytical tools. The description only implies a usage context (dynamic allocation based on context and cognitive load theory) but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or which scenarios are appropriate.

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