SimpleFunctions

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 successfully declares the read-only safety profile and SF API key authentication requirement. It also compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned data fields, though it omits pagination or rate limit details.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first defines the operation and return payload, the second covers behavioral traits (read-only, auth), and the third provides usage guidance. Information is perfectly front-loaded with the primary action leading the description.

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 the tool's low complexity (single required parameter) and absence of output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing return schema by enumerating output fields, explains authentication requirements, clarifies the tool's role in the broader workflow, and establishes safety boundaries (read-only).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single apiKey parameter ('SF API key (sf_live_...). Required.'). The description confirms 'Requires SF API key' but adds no additional semantic context, syntax details, or usage patterns beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific action ('List every thesis'), resource scope ('owned by the authenticated user'), and return fields ('id, title, status, and last evaluation timestamp'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning the tool as a discovery mechanism for thesisId values required by other operations.

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 the tool ('Use to discover thesisId values needed by...') and names four specific sibling tools (get_context, trigger_evaluation, inject_signal, fork_thesis) that depend on this tool's output, providing clear navigation logic for the agent.

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