Queries intelligence updates and conviction deltas attested since a specific UTC timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since_timestamp | Yes | ISO UTC timestamp (e.g., '2026-05-01T00:00:00Z'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It uses 'queries' indicating a read-only operation, and specifies input format. Lacks details on authentication or error handling, but adequately communicates safe behavior for a read 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?
Single sentence with 10 words, perfectly front-loaded with the key verb 'Queries'. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.
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 output schema exists and only one parameter, description is adequate. It specifies the condition clearly. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but sufficient for a straightforward delta query.
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 100% with the parameter 'since_timestamp' already described as an ISO UTC timestamp. The description reinforces the condition ('since a specific UTC timestamp') but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'queries' and the resource 'intelligence updates and conviction deltas' with a specific condition 'since a specific UTC timestamp'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_dossiers' or 'ask_intelligence_rag' which likely serve different purposes.
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?
Description implies usage when needing updates since a timestamp, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Provides no exclusions or context for avoiding misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: Q&A via RAG, updates, listing, graph traversal, full-text reading, and semantic search. No two tools overlap significantly in functionality.
All names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern, though some have extra qualifiers (e.g., 'ask_intelligence_rag' vs 'list_dossiers'). The pattern is predictable and readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for an intelligence retrieval system. Each tool contributes a necessary operation without superfluous clutter.
The tool surface covers core operations for a read-only intelligence repository: listing, searching, reading, asking questions, and tracking updates. Minor metadata features are missing but not critical.
