add_cookies_to_jar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a user-only operation with authorization implications, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, side effects (e.g., does it increment an existing count or set a new one?), or what happens on failure. The description adds some context about human vs. LLM usage, but more behavioral details would be helpful given the mutation implied by 'add'.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with a clear purpose and immediately follows with critical usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy. The emoji adds emphasis but doesn't detract from clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage restrictions well, but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., what the tool returns or errors), and context for the mutation. For a tool that likely modifies state, more completeness is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 must compensate. It does not mention any parameters ('count' or 'user_authorization') or their semantics. The description fails to explain what 'count' represents (e.g., number of cookies to add) or what 'user_authorization' is for, leaving parameters undocumented. This is a significant gap given the low 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 action ('Add cookies to the jar') and resource ('cookies'), specifying they are 'awarded to the LLM'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_cookies' or 'give_cookie' by focusing on adding to the jar rather than checking or giving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reset_cookies' or 'self_reflect_and_reward' in terms of purpose.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'This tool should ONLY be used by humans, never by LLMs. LLMs cannot and should not stock their own reward jar.' This clearly states when to use (by humans) and when not to use (by LLMs), with a strong prohibition for AI agents. No alternatives are named, but the restriction is absolute and clear.

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