category

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

The description explains each action's effect (e.g., 'reset' returns to seed state). The annotations include destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the 'reset' action. However, it does not explicitly state that 'list' and 'members' are read-only, nor does it disclose authorization requirements or rate limits.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, bulleted actions, clear examples, and an args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary text.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters and actions adequately. However, it could mention the output format or how the tool integrates with conflict detection, though this is not essential.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter in detail: action options, category_name requirement, members format, and source values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it's for 'Substitution categories for conflict detection' and lists specific actions (list, members, learn, reset). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'conflict' or 'memory', which might have overlapping 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 explicit actions and examples for each, giving clear usage context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, leaving some ambiguity.

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