SimpleFunctions

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and discloses: side-effect nature, authentication requirement (SF API key), and post-creation behavior (recurring evaluation scheduling). Minor gap: doesn't describe error behavior or return value format.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and mechanics, followed by behavioral warnings, ending with sibling differentiation. Zero redundancy—every clause provides unique signal not duplicated in schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter creation tool with complex downstream effects (causal tree, recurring jobs) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavioral lifecycle. Minor deduction for not describing the return value or success confirmation format.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds semantic context: 'natural-language statement' reinforces the 'title' parameter's purpose, and 'Requires SF API key' maps to the 'apiKey' parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's mechanical 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?

Description provides specific verb (Create), resource (thesis), and detailed mechanics (parses natural-language, builds causal tree, schedules recurring evaluation). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'fork_thesis' by contrasting 'new' vs 'existing public thesis'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternative: 'Use fork_thesis instead if you want to start from an existing public thesis.' Also flags 'Side-effectful' to indicate this is for actual creation, not previewing.

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