Maintenance Mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'simulate' and 'demo only', which hints that this is a non-destructive, mock operation, but it doesn't clarify what 'simulate' entails (e.g., whether it actually affects tool functionality, returns mock data, or has side effects). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its real-world impact and safety.

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, efficient sentence: 'Simulate enabling or disabling tools for maintenance (demo only)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and demo context, and with an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., what 'simulate' means operationally) to be fully comprehensive.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'toolName' and 'enable' parameters clearly, including enum values for 'toolName'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.

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: 'Simulate enabling or disabling tools for maintenance (demo only)'. It specifies the action ('enabling or disabling') and the target ('tools'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'demo_progress' that might also be for demos. The mention of 'maintenance' and 'demo only' adds context but doesn't fully distinguish it from other demo-related tools.

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 with 'demo only', suggesting this tool is for testing or demonstration purposes rather than production. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'demo_progress' or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The implied context is helpful but lacks detailed alternatives.

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