Bureau (about)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds content-scope context (what topics are covered, that links are included) but no extra behavioral detail such as output format or freshness. Adequate but modest value beyond structured fields.

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 content sentence followed by a two-word call to action, with the most important framing (overview of Bureau) front-loaded. Slightly listy and comma-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description sufficiently tells the agent what content comes back and that it should be the entry point. Only a note on output shape or length would add more.

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 zero parameters, so the schema requires no per-parameter explanation and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and simply describes what the no-argument call returns.

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 names a specific resource (Bureau) and enumerates the content the tool returns: what it is, the problem it solves, how it works, current and upcoming features, and links. This is clearly distinct from a FAQ or roadmap lookup. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the content scope is well defined.

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?

"Start here" gives explicit sequencing guidance — this is the orientation tool to call before get_faq, get_roadmap, or how_to_install. It stops short of naming those alternatives or excluding cases, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that answers come with links, which is modest return-content context, but says nothing about pagination, size limits or freshness.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states scope and payload in one pass.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is not hinting at the volume or structure of the FAQ set.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible.

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?

Names the resource (FAQ about Bureau) and states what is returned (answers and links), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `search_bureau`, which also surfaces Bureau content, but the read-all framing is clear enough.

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 only implied: fetching the full FAQ list versus the targeted lookups offered by `search_bureau` or `about_bureau`. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content-scope context (three roadmap stages, hosted version) but says nothing about freshness, volatility, or format. With a zero-parameter, annotation-covered tool, this is an adequate but modest addition.

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 with no filler, front-loading the three roadmap horizons and tucking the waitlist context into a clarifying parenthetical. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-argument, read-only tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description tells the agent what content comes back, which is the only real unknown. No output schema exists, but a roadmap payload needs little more explanation; only the ordering/format of the returned items is left implicit.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is unconditional. No gaps here.

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 resource (the Bureau roadmap) and breaks down its content into three concrete time horizons — today, next, later — plus the hosted version the waitlist targets. That is far more specific than a restatement of the title, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings like about_bureau or get_faq.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'what's coming / future plans' questions, and the parenthetical about the waitlist hints at a hosted-version use case. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to about_bureau for present-state questions.

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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful context about the content of the response (Node or Docker instructions plus connecting a first agent), but does not go further into output format or retrieval behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the tool's scope efficiently.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what the instructions cover. It could be slightly richer about the output structure, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids doing so.

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's purpose: providing step-by-step instructions to run a Bureau hub with Node or Docker and connect a first agent. It is specific about the resource and the covered topics, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like about_bureau or get_faq.

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 by the description—use it when installation guidance is needed—but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns best-matching passages with URLs intended for quoting and citation, which tells the agent the output shape and usage mode.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by what comes back. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a linked-output tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return value. However, with four semantically adjacent siblings and an undocumented limit parameter, it leaves routing and one parameter under-specified for an agent choosing between this and get_faq/get_roadmap.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. Schema coverage is only 50% (query documented, limit not), so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter — its range and default are only in the schema. No syntax or guidance on query phrasing beyond the schema example.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (everything getbureau.dev says about Bureau), enumerating the content types covered. It implicitly separates itself from get_faq/get_roadmap by aggregating all of them, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'search everything' implies this is the broad-search entry point versus the narrower get_faq/get_roadmap sibling tools, but that contrast is left to inference. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given.

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