get_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions might be needed, what side effects exist, or what the response format might be. This is completely inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.

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?

While technically concise with just the tool name, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word doesn't earn its place by providing any useful information, making it ineffective despite its minimal length.

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?

This is completely inadequate for a tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema. The description provides no information about purpose, behavior, parameters, or usage context. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'analyze_code' and 'developer_tip', this description fails to provide even basic contextual understanding.

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%, meaning the single 'prompt' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever - no explanation of what the prompt should contain, its format, or its purpose. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ac', 'gc', or 'tip', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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