Leanfare's level

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world tool, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope semantics beyond that: setting with 'app' or 'default' persists beyond the current chat. However, it says nothing about what a set returns, whether the caller can inspect which scope is active, or what happens when chat-level and app-level settings conflict.

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?

This is a single dense paragraph that rewards careful reading but front-loads the two call modes (no args to read, 'set' to write) before the scope details. The five level definitions are compact and each earns its place, and the closing note about passing the level to delegate/plan correctly routes the agent to siblings.

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?

With only two optional params, no annotations gap, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the read path, the write path, scope persistence, defaults, and the instruction to follow the returned level. It also states that the learned level must be passed to delegate and plan, closing the loop to sibling tools.

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 100%, with 'set' bounded 1-5 and 'scope' enum-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes modestly further by spelling out what each numeric level means in behavioral terms and by reinforcing the scope default, though most of this restates the schema's own descriptions.

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 makes clear this tool reads or writes a 1-5 'Leanfare level' that governs how much work is handed off, and it names related siblings ('Pass the level to delegate and plan'). The purpose is understandable, but it opens with the level ladder rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, so the agent must read the whole paragraph to learn that the tool doubles as getter and setter.

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?

Explicit call conditions are given for both modes: call with nothing at the start of a chat to learn the level, and call with 'set' plus scope when the user says something like 'Leanfare 4'. The per-level definitions (1 'only when the user asks' through 5 'every part a model can do') effectively encode when each level should apply, and the scope default (chat) is stated.

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