expand_uai_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden. It discloses that the tool 'verify its hash,' which is a behavioral trait, but provides no other details—such as side effects, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. The description is too sparse to give an agent confidence about the tool's behavior beyond the stated operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and keeps essential information. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is dense and uses specialized jargon that may hinder comprehension. Efficiency is good, but clarity suffers slightly from terminology.

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 an obscure, domain-specific operation with no usage context or differentiation from numerous siblings. The output schema exists but the description doesn't need to explain returns. However, it omits when to use this tool versus compile_uai_context or decode_uai_result, and lacks details on hash verification behavior or failure modes. An agent would struggle to decide when to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely ties the parameter `wire` to a 'UAI/1 context packet,' giving some meaning, but does not explain the format, constraints, or how the packet is structured. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, this is insufficient.

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 action: 'Round-trip a UAI/1 context packet back into its canonical semantic execution projection and verify its hash.' It identifies the resource (UAI/1 context packet) and the verb (round-trip, verify). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compile_uai_context or decode_uai_result, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the domain context.

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