tool_introspection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The default action 'get_capabilities' suggests querying, but this is not stated, potentially misleading an agent about side effects.

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 short sentence, but it omits essential details. Conciseness is not beneficial when it leads to under-specification; the description should be longer to include parameter and behavioral context.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what actions are possible, how to use filters, or what the output contains, leaving the agent unable to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters ('action', 'tool_name', 'tool_type'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameter semantics completely unspecified.

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 states the tool provides 'detailed description of each tool's function', which conveys a vague purpose of introspection. It does not specify the verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'describe') or clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'system_diagnostics', making the purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about situations where introspection is needed, and no comparison with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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