tie_deviances_by_checker

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the TIE API models this as a POST with a filter body, explains the effect of the verbose flag on token usage, and states the no-date-filter constraint. These insights go beyond what a simple 'list' would imply and are crucial for an agent to anticipate output size and API semantics.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the subsequent Args block is necessary given the schema lacks descriptions. While the text is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place—the POST body detail and verbose explanation are useful, not redundant. A slightly leaner formatting could tighten it, but it remains efficient.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, alternatives, parameter semantics, and even output verbosity control. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but the phrase 'List IoE deviances' and the verbose flag sufficiently imply the output format. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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's Args block fully compensates by documenting all six parameters with meaningful details. It explains checker_id references the checkers resource, profile_id default, page and per_page pagination, expression as an optional filter object defaulting to {}, and verbose behavior. This adds far more value than the bare schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List IoE deviances for a given checker within a profile (full detail, no date filter).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting the absence of a date filter, making it immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from tie_deviances or tie_recent_activity.

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 explicitly provides alternative tools for time-bounded queries: 'For a time-bounded view use tie_deviances(hours=...) or tie_recent_activity instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, along with named alternatives. It also explains that an empty expression returns all deviances, further clarifying expected usage.

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