openmausbot_describe_cua_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the tool's description and JSON input schema, which is useful context about the output but not additional behavioral detail. No contradictions with annotations; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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 a single, succinct sentence with no filler. It states the action and the resource efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter with a clear description, an output schema provided (as indicated by context), and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it and understand what it will return. There are no missing pieces for a task of this simplicity.

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 schema description for the 'name' parameter is highly informative: 'Exact cua-driver tool name returned by openmausbot_list_cua_tools.' This tells the agent exactly where to obtain the value, adding meaning beyond the basic type and pattern constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description complements rather than compensates.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('description and JSON input schema for one cua-driver tool'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like openmausbot_list_cua_tools (which lists all tools) and openmausbot_call_cua_tool (which invokes a tool). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 implies usage: to fetch metadata for a specific tool. The parameter description explicitly states that the name must be 'returned by openmausbot_list_cua_tools', providing a clear prerequisite and indicating that one should list tools first. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is obvious given the sibling names and the parameter guidance.

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