get_tool_effort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool returns effort level and reasoning requirement, with no mention of side effects, permissions, or data freshness. As a read-only 'get' tool, it is likely safe, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any behavioral traits.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and returns. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and output fields. However, it does not explain what 'effort level' means or the structure of the returned data, leaving some ambiguity that a more complete description could resolve.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (tool_name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting or examples, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 gets effort level metadata for a specific tool, specifying it returns the default effort level and whether it requires reasoning. This distinguishes it from sibling data retrieval tools like kenpom_teams, as it is meta about tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'effort level metadata' are specific.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like classify_effort or other kenpom tools. It only implies it is for retrieving metadata, but no when-not-to-use or context is given.

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