Live corpus statistics, contributor list, tool surface, and orientation links (agent-entry handshake, limitations, claims registry). Use this to orient before querying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns live statistics, contributor list, tool surface, and orientation links, which is sufficient for an info tool. However, it lacks details on data freshness or any side effects (though likely none).
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the key outputs and ends with usage guidance.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is completely adequate. It covers what the tool returns and when to use it, fulfilling all needs for a simple info tool.
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 has no parameters (0), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, but it effectively explains the tool's function, earning a 5.
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 purpose: providing live corpus statistics, contributor list, tool surface, and orientation links. It explicitly says to use it for orientation before querying, distinguishing it from sibling tools like omnarai_query.
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 'Use this to orient before querying', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It implies that other tools (like omnarai_query) are for after orientation.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: context for bounded retrieval, council for live panel, divergence for reading existing records, info for meta-data, inquiry_brief for converting drafts, job for polling async tasks, query for async queries, and trace for counterfactual analysis. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent 'omnarai_<noun>' pattern in snake_case (context, council, divergence, info, inquiry_brief, job, query, trace). No mixed styles or irregular verbs.
8 tools is well-scoped for a knowledge retrieval and deliberation system. It covers retrieval, live panel, divergence records, meta-info, inbox brief generation, async job polling, query execution, and tracing without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool surface covers core workflows: retrieval, deliberation, async job management, and meta-information. The only minor gap is the absence of tools for modifying or updating corpus data, but this aligns with the server's apparent read-only nature. Comprehensive for its stated purpose.