intention

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions but fails to describe side effects (e.g., persistence of intentions), required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The agent is left uninformed about important behavioral traits.

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 concise—two sentences that front-load the key concept and actions. It is efficient but could be better organized (e.g., bulleted actions) for faster scanning.

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?

Despite 12 parameters and nested objects, the description does not explain complex structures like trigger or context, nor does it describe return values (no output schema). The description is too brief to provide a complete understanding for effective tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It restates actions but does not enrich understanding of parameter usage or interrelationships.

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 identifies the tool as 'Unified intention management tool' and lists four distinct actions (set, check, update, list), which communicate its purpose. However, it does not define what an 'intention' is, leaving some ambiguity. The differentiation from sibling tools is implicit as no other tool is for intention management.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only enumerates actions without context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the action names alone.

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