SimpleFunctions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It comprehensively discloses: side-effects ('Side-effectful'), cost ('LLM-billed'), latency ('5-30s'), rate limiting ('rate-limited per plan'), and authentication ('Requires SF API key').

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes action and all behavioral traits (side-effects, billing, latency), second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core verb and structured logically.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the internal behavior (signal consumption, edge re-scanning, score updates) and external constraints (auth, billing, limits) to enable confident invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage (both thesisId and apiKey fully documented). Description mentions 'Requires SF API key' but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides regarding formats or sourcing.

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 opens with specific verb ('Force') and resource ('thesis evaluation'), clarifies the mechanism ('consumes pending signals, re-scans edges'), and distinguishes from sibling inject_signal by stating this is the follow-up action to get fresh output.

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 ('after inject_signal when you need fresh output now') and provides the alternative ('otherwise theses re-evaluate on their own schedule'), creating clear decision criteria vs. waiting for automatic re-evaluation.

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