plex_natural_assistant

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool uses 'the configured sampling endpoint (Ollama / client)' and explicitly says 'no tool execution', which clarifies it does not perform actions on the server. It also describes the return format, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. Annotations are neutral (both false), so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly.

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 well-structured: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, return format, and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the content is compact without being terse. The use of headers and examples makes it scannable and clear.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's scope (single-turn, sampling), clarifies its limitations (no tool execution), points to alternatives, specifies the return format, and gives concrete examples. The agent has all information needed to select and invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it provides examples of calls but no additional explanation of parameter semantics. The examples are illustrative but not necessary since the schema already defines user_query and detail_level with 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 clearly states the tool provides 'Single-turn natural-language help about Plex (sampling, no tool execution)', which is specific and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentic_plex_workflow. It also names the exact resource ('Plex') and the nature ('natural-language help'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'For actions that change server state or need live data, use portmanteau tools or agentic_plex_workflow.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directing the agent to alternatives for state-changing operations while implying this tool is for informational queries.

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