SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool changes the interface mode, implying a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., impact on other tools), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the modes without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. While the parameter is well-covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that may have overlapping or related functionalities.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'mode' fully documented in the schema, including its enum values. The description adds minimal value by listing the enum values, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description slightly enhances clarity by explicitly naming the modes, warranting a score of 4.

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 action ('Change') and the resource ('operator interface display mode'), and it enumerates the specific modes (hud, compact, voice-only, silent), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, such as sint__interface_status or sint__show_hud, by focusing on mode changes rather than status checks or display actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sint__interface_status for checking the current mode or sint__show_hud for displaying the HUD. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions beyond the basic action.

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