xero_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is a no-op in flattened mode, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also adds context about tool availability. While it doesn't detail return values or behavior in non-flattened mode, the core side effect (no-op) is transparently disclosed, which is sufficient for this trivial 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide necessary context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose, the no-op behavior in flattened mode, and the reason for that behavior. The only minor gap is not defining 'domain selection' or 'flattened mode', but these are contextual concepts likely understood from sibling tools and the environment. The description is adequate for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% since there is nothing to document. Per baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 tool's function: 'Return to domain selection' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly notes it is a 'no-op in flattened mode'. This distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like xero_contacts_list or xero_invoices_get. The purpose is unambiguous even for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 context by noting the tool is a no-op in flattened mode and that 'All tools are always available', suggesting that in the current environment one might not need to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_navigate, nor provide exclusions beyond the flattened mode caveat. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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