COMPAMIR News

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

The description indicates a read operation, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if id not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple get, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main return contents (source links, conflict note). However, it omits the lang parameter and could benefit from a brief usage hint relative to sibling tools.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'lang' parameter's purpose or default behavior. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema properties show (id is a string, lang is an enum).

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'single COMPAMIR event by id', and specifies what is included (source links and conflict note). It easily distinguishes from siblings list_conflicts and search_events.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you know the id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs search_events or list_conflicts, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output content (plain-language note and source links) which adds useful context, but does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication 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 two sentences, no redundant words. First sentence states purpose with a distinctive name, second sentence details output. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers output format (note and source links) but lacks information about pagination, ordering, or result set size implications. With no output schema, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.

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 50% with only 'since' having a description. The description does not add meaning to 'limit' beyond its schema constraints (default, min, max). It does not explain how parameters affect results, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'events where reporting diverges across sources', which is a specific subset of events. It distinguishes the tool from siblings 'get_event' (single event) and 'search_events' (general search) by focusing on conflicts.

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 clear context by explicitly mentioning it is the signature 'Conflict Watch' tool for listing conflicting reports. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling names imply the use cases.

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?

With no annotations, description fully covers behavioral traits: deduplication, conflict flagging, languages, source links, and AI processing caveat. Still lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but these are less critical for a search 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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then key features, then caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and 8 optional parameters, the description covers core aspects (deduplication, languages, conflicts, sources) but lacks details on pagination, output format, or conflict interpretation. Could be more complete.

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 low (38%), but description adds context about languages and deduplication that aids parameter interpretation. Does not explicitly describe all 8 parameters, partially compensating.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'COMPAMIR structured news events', and adds distinguishing features (deduplication, conflict flagging, languages). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools get_event and list_conflicts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_event or list_conflicts. The description implies it is for searching, but lacks when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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