grounding_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid, but it does not describe permissions, latency, rate limits, or what 'returns grounding' concretely means; the return behavior remains vague beyond the one-word phrase.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted preamble. 'Returns grounding' is somewhat redundant with the earlier sentence, but overall it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what a 'grounded line' actually is and what the agent receives. It only says 'Returns grounding,' which is too vague to fully inform correct invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so the single 'situation' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds the context that the situation should be stressed or stuck, but that largely echoes the schema's own description rather than adding new semantics.

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 states a specific input ('stressed or stuck situation') and output ('one grounded line to steady on'), so the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from utility siblings like summarize_url or verify_claim. The metaphor 'grounded line' is slightly vague, but the core action is understandable.

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?

It implies usage for stressful or stuck situations, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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