give_cookie

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 mentions 'legacy method', implying potential deprecation or limited functionality, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what 'awarding a cookie' entails (e.g., is it symbolic, does it affect state, are there side effects). The description lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or return 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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the purpose and usage guideline efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and provides a usage alternative, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, or output. For a simple tool, this might suffice, but gaps remain in transparency and semantics.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'message' parameter. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meaning or usage. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3, as the lack of param info is less critical.

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 purpose: 'Award the LLM with a cookie'. It specifies the verb ('Award') and resource ('cookie'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_cookies_to_jar' or 'check_cookies'. The mention of 'legacy method' adds context but doesn't fully distinguish functionality.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: it explicitly recommends 'consider using self_reflect_and_reward instead', indicating an alternative. However, it doesn't specify when to prefer this tool over the alternative or how it differs from other siblings like 'add_cookies_to_jar'.

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