Determine if fire-safety equipment changes require document or professional confirmation routing for Taiwan interior decoration permits, with fail-closed handling for unclear cases.
Fail-closed routing for fire-safety-equipment document/professional confirmation needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| files | No | ||
| fire_equipment_change_flag | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'fail-closed routing' without explaining what that entails, what happens to inputs, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.
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 short, fragmented phrase rather than a complete sentence. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of clarity, making it under-specified.
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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is completely inadequate. It provides no useful information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage.
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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the three parameters (text, files, fire_equipment_change_flag). The phrase 'document/professional confirmation' hints at text/files but provides no concrete 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 'Fail-closed routing for fire-safety-equipment document/professional confirmation needs' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. The verb is ambiguous, and the purpose is not differentiated from sibling tools like check_fire_compartment_evidence.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.