perspective_shifter

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses requirement for environment variables, live network calls, and failure conditions. Also indicates that 'stakeholder' and 'discipline' shiftTypes are research-backed while others are generic, providing quality insight. Missing details on rate limits or cost, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, requirements+behavior, alternative. Front-loaded with core action and resource. 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers purpose, requirements, behavior, and alternatives adequately. Could specify markdown report structure more, but overall complete for typical use.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by noting which shiftTypes are research-backed vs generic, and confirming currentPerspective is optional context. Does not substantially exceed schema explanation for other parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates alternative viewpoints on a problem via web research, with specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'problem'. Distinguishes from sibling verify_research by contrasting purpose (viewpoints vs. fact-checking).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (generating perspectives) and when not to (fact-checking) with direct reference to sibling tool verify_research. Also lists prerequisites (EXA_API_KEY, ENABLE_RESEARCH_INTEGRATION=true) and behavioral constraints (live network calls).

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