Godette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that switching modes updates tool description hints and emits a 'config:mode-changed' event, adding useful behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('switch the active mode') and includes essential behavioral details without redundancy. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the action and some effects but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, which could aid the agent in proper invocation.

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 100%, with the parameter 'mode' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of each mode choice. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('switch') and resource ('active mode'), specifying the four possible modes. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on mode switching rather than file operations, node manipulation, or debugging tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'get_config' which might retrieve mode information.

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 implies usage when needing to change modes, with the mention of updating tool description hints and emitting an event providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., checking current mode with 'get_config') or prerequisites. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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