icf_suggest_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by examples, then an Args list. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity and existence of an output schema (though not shown), the return description is adequate. However, it does not detail the structure of the suggested instruments or rationale beyond a high-level statement. Sufficient for basic understanding.

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 0%, but description lists all parameters with examples and semantics (e.g., 'icf_code: ICF code to match against instrument mappings'). However, it does not specify format constraints or that at least one parameter is needed. Partially compensates for missing schema 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 clearly states the tool suggests assessment instruments for a condition, ICF code, or domain. It provides examples and distinguishes from sibling tools like icf_list_instruments by focusing on suggestion rather than listing all instruments.

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?

Description implies when to use (when searching instruments by condition, ICF code, domain) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of sibling tools or exclusions.

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