Handle an objection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: accepts an objection and returns a reframe plus chapter citation. It implies a non-destructive, read-only mapping operation, though it does not explicitly elaborate on return format or limitations beyond 'common objections'.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb. Every element earns its place: the action, the scope of objections, examples, and the citation behavior. There is no redundancy or vague filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, input scope, and output format (reframe + citation). It could mention edge cases (e.g., unrecognized objections) but is otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description, but the tool description adds meaningful semantic context: it narrows the objection to common concerns about async/remote work and provides examples. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'skepticism or pushback' and clarifies expected input.

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's function: mapping a common objection to open/async work to the book's reframe with a chapter citation. It uses a specific verb ('Map') and identifies the resource (objections), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve content or create documents.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when a common objection to async/remote work is raised), and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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