minimax_window

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral trait of making no API call, but it does not mention potential errors, performance characteristics, or state dependencies. For a simple zero-parameter tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a critical behavioral distinction, making it perfectly sized for this simple tool.

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 (zero parameters, no side effects), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. An output schema exists, so the description correctly omits return-value details. The description clearly states what is returned and its local nature.

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 fully documents that (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-related meaning because there are none, which is acceptable.

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 'Return' and the specific resource 'agent-local 5h observation window', and explicitly notes 'no API call', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely make network requests. This is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 via 'only' and 'no API call', indicating this is for when the agent needs local observation data without any network interaction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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