standing_files

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Calling the tool a 'table' hints at read-only reference data, but the description never states whether calling it returns the mapping, whether it is safe/idempotent, or what the response looks like.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it immediately names the concept of an ownership table. It is a model of brevity, though that brevity contributes to its lack of operational clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to explain what the agent receives and what terms like 'standing file' and 'knowledge' mean. It instead gives a terse metaphor, leaving the agent without enough information to predict the tool's return value or understand its relationship to the siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 identifies the tool as an 'ownership table' and states the relationship it encodes, but it never uses an action verb such as list, get, or return. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings like current_identity or route_lesson, leaving the purpose recognizable but vague.

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 invoke this tool versus its alternatives. The description only explains what the resource represents, not when an agent should use it or when it should prefer a sibling tool.

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