hai_distill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect—that the server parks everything else—and emphasizes the exactness of the output. Still, it leaves unclear whether the operation is reversible, what happens to prior state, or which permissions are required.

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 one tight sentence with the key constraint front-loaded. 'EXACTLY' emphasizes the most critical behavioral rule. It is minimally worded but still conveys the tool's primary effect.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description should provide enough context about parameter usage, side effects, and when to apply it. It discloses the parking side effect but leaves parameter semantics and usage boundaries unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent choosing among many siblings.

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%, so parameter meaning is entirely on the description. The description maps to decision and next_step contextually, and 'parks everything else' hints at parklist, but it never explicitly defines intake_id, parklist values, or how the parameters relate to the stated behavior.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pairing, 'Reduce an intake', and sharpens the expected outcome to exactly one decision and one next step. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the server parks everything else, making its scope distinct from simple park or proposal tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an intake needs to be distilled down to a single decision and next step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like hai_park, hai_propose_next_step, or hai_accept_next_step.

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