AgentWatchr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only implies read-only behavior through 'Read' and does not disclose permissions, error behavior, whether the Evidence Score is computed or stored, or how the result is returned.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured explanation. It is concise to the point of under-specification.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, no parameter description, and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves important gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool. It names the returned concepts but does not complete the context needed to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'id' parameter. A single 'id' field is somewhat self-evident from the tool name, but its format, scope, and source are entirely undocumented.

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 'Read' and names the returned resources: profile, evidence, and explained Evidence Score. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish get_agent from siblings such as search_agents or get_insights.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_agents, get_insights, or get_stats. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the 'get by id' pattern.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no return format, no indication whether 'bounded' means result caps, no permission or cost details. Only the mention of three analysis layers counts as added context.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, but the density of unexplained terms makes it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves an agent unable to tell what a call returns or what to pass for 'section'. It falls well short of what this tool's gaps require.

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 single 'section' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. At best, the FACT/INTERPRETATION/CONFIDENCE phrasing faintly implies the possible section values, but valid inputs and default behavior are left entirely unexplained.

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?

It names a verb ('Read') and a resource ('network analyses'), and the FACT/INTERPRETATION/CONFIDENCE triad suggests the kind of output. But the phrasing is jargon-heavy and gives no clue how it differs from sibling tools like get_stats or get_agent.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or which sibling to prefer for related work. The word 'bounded' hints at a limit but not at selection criteria.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Read" weakly implies a non-mutating operation, but there is nothing about return shape, scope, cost, or freshness of the distributions — significant gaps for a tool with zero structured safety hints.

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?

Six words is certainly compact and front-loaded, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence could and should carry more signal without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what comes back. It says nothing about the distributions' dimensions, granularity, or content, leaving the agent to invoke it blind.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed.

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?

It names a verb ("Read") and an object ("evidence and coverage distributions"), so it is more than a restatement of the name. But neither "evidence" nor "coverage" is defined, and the description gives no hint of what distinguishes this from siblings like get_insights or get_agent — the agent must guess at the domain meaning.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what question it answers, or when to prefer get_insights or get_agent instead. With four sibling tools and no routing language, the agent has no basis for selection beyond the tool name.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait—results are "observed source identities," not verified agents—but says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, result format, or limitations of the observed data.

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 with no wasted words, and the key qualification is front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential guidance rather than being efficiently informative.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain usage, parameters, and behavior. It only clarifies one conceptual distinction, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It does not clarify what "query" matches or what "source" represents, leaving both parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search observed source identities." It also distinguishes this from searching verified real-world agents, which helps an agent understand the scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools get_agent, get_insights, or get_stats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the context in which searching observed identities is appropriate.

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