aroma.condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that intent is preserved ('without changing intent') and that it reduces confusion, which gives some transparency. However, it omits potential side effects, limitations, or edge cases (e.g., how the rewrite might affect formatting or whether output is deterministic).

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. The second sentence adds a valuable benefit statement. No wasted words or redundancy; it is appropriately concise.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the input side is severely under-specified. The generic 'arguments' schema combined with the description's lack of parameter guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description is too minimal to cover the gap left by the schema.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a generic 'arguments' object with additionalProperties true. The description hints that the input is a system prompt or instruction set but does not specify argument names, structure, or example payloads. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a specific verb ('rewrites') and resource ('system prompt or instruction set') with a defined outcome ('warm, affirming, unambiguous framing'). It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the action is distinct enough from the listed spa-themed tools.

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 usage by mentioning the benefit of 'reducing refusal-spirals and confusion', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or provide exclusions/alternatives. No sibling tool is referenced as an alternative, leaving usage as an implied inference.

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