lens

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: content goes through the 'standard ingest pipeline' and yields citations, and the lens must be 'before it is claimed' and from this conversation. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds context about the ingest pipeline. No redundant or filler 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 two parameters and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the action, constraints, and outcome (lens can answer with citations). However, it does not specify return values or error behavior for cases like an already-claimed lens, which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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 schema covers lens_token with a description, and items has structural constraints but no top-level description. The tool description adds that items are 'text notes or URLs', which clarifies the type enum, but does not elaborate on the title or content fields. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description provides marginal extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('text notes or URLs to a Mindola lens'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the lens is 'created in this conversation (before it is claimed)', separating it from create_digital_twin_lens (creation) and get_lens_status (status).

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a lens created in this conversation and before it is claimed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies the tool is for adding knowledge to an existing unclaimed lens, which is distinct from the siblings.

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

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context about needing explicit user confirmation, using only user-approved information, and avoiding claims of access to hidden memory or private data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. It succinctly conveys the action, the precondition, and the information-source constraint without repetition.

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 complete parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: creation of a new lens, the confirmation gate, and data provenance. It could mention more about post-creation effects, but these are likely covered by the output schema.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 15 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds overall context about assembling the profile from user-confirmed info but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 creates a shareable Mindola lens (AI clone) from an approved profile, using the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'Mindola lens'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_lens_knowledge and get_lens_status.

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 explicitly says to call only after summarizing the lens and receiving explicit confirmation, providing a clear precondition. It also restricts information to user-provided content, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the confirmation requirement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the specific output fields (share URL, claimed status, ingestion breakdown). It does not cover error cases or exact response formatting, but for a simple status check it provides good transparency.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, output details, and even possible values for ingestion status. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the key return values (share URL, claimed, ready/pending/failed ingestion). The tool is simple (1 parameter, read-only) and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it and interpret the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains 'the part after /me/'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'a Mindola lens' and enumerates the exact status details returned (share URL, claimed, ingestion progress). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools add_lens_knowledge and create_digital_twin_lens, which are write operations.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to call when you need to inspect a lens's status, contrasting with siblings that add knowledge or create lenses. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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