dalembert_init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'initialize a new session' without explaining side effects like overwriting existing sessions, required state, or return values. This lacks sufficient transparency for an initialization tool.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 complexity (multiple sibling init tools) and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the concept of a 'betting session', how it interacts with other dalembert tools, or what the initialization entails. The context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the parameter names but adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline score of 3.

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 initializes a new D'Alembert betting session, specifying the required base unit and optional max bet limit. This differentiates it from other sibling betting system init tools by naming the specific system.

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?

While the description indicates when to use the tool (to start a D'Alembert session), it does not provide guidance on when to choose D'Alembert over other systems or any prerequisites. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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