twilize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool evaluates templates against data profile and chart mix, returns a ranked list with reasoning, and uses a decider. However, it doesn't mention performance aspects (e.g., rate limits), error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. It's appropriately sized, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative flow, slightly affecting readability.

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 complexity (evaluation and ranking tool), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage timing, parameters, and return format, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to explain return values redundantly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters: 'chart_types' as a comma-separated list with an example, and 'kpi_count' as an override derived from chart_types. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Score all gallery templates and recommend the best fit.' It specifies the verb ('Score... and recommend'), resource ('gallery templates'), and outcome ('best fit'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_gallery_templates' (which just lists) or 'diff_template_gap' (which compares).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this AFTER profiling the data source and deciding on chart types, but BEFORE creating the dashboard layout.' It also distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying the decider's role, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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