trip2g

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the behavior: omitting toc_path gives top-level sections, passing toc_path lists subsections, and returns children with title, level, path, and has_children. It also describes the relationship between expand and note_html. No contradictions.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a helpful canonical call example. However, there is minor redundancy with parameter details already in the schema (e.g., repeating 'Non-negative integer' for pid and note_id). It could be slightly tighter.

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, the description adequately explains the return fields. Parameters are fully described. However, it does not contrast with the sibling 'federated_expand', which might confuse the agent about when to use each. It is complete for single-note usage but lacks cross-tool context.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It clarifies the preferred parameter (path), explains how to copy values from search results, and gives usage examples (e.g., omit toc_path for top-level). This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 action 'walk a note's table of contents level by level' and identifies the resource (a note's TOC). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'federated_expand', which is a similar operation but on federated notes. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 a usage workflow: 'Drill down with expand, then read a leaf with note_html' and gives a canonical call pattern. It advises copying the path from search results. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives or when not to use it.

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, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the progressive disclosure walk but does not mention whether it is read-only (implied by 'walk') or any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The canonical call example provides some transparency 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 three sentences with no superfluous words: purpose, canonical call, and toc_path explanation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 6 parameters, the description covers the main usage pattern but does not explain return values (what the tool outputs). It also omits error conditions or depth limitations (mentioned in schema but not description). For a complex federated tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of toc_path ('omit for top level, pass to list subsections') and the canonical call structure, which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand usage beyond property types.

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 action ('walk a remote note's table of contents level by level') and the resource ('remote note', 'connected knowledge base'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling 'expand' by specifying the federated context. It provides a canonical call example, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explains how to use the tool: omit toc_path for top level, pass it to list subsections. It references 'same as expand' for familiarity but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like 'expand' or 'federated_search'. Still, it conveys clear usage context.

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. It describes the recursive routing behavior for nested bases. However, it does not disclose safety (read-only), authentication needs, error handling, or return format. These are minor omissions for a fetch 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every part is informative with no fluff. The example is integrated 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?

Given the tool's complexity (federated, recursive), single parameter, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior and usage pattern. It could mention what happens on error or if the kb_id doesn't exist, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the recursive routing behavior but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema's already clear explanation of the parameter. The example in the schema is repeated in the description.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'instructions/guidance for a federated knowledge base by kb_id'. It specifies the scope (federated) and adds behavior (nested bases with '/', recursive routing). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'instructions' (non-federated) and other federated tools.

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 advises to 'read a base's own conventions before searching it', indicating when to use the tool. It explains addressing nested bases. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the context and sibling 'instructions' imply alternatives.

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, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a read operation, copies fields verbatim from search results, and mentions constraints like federation depth limit and value interpretation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none) or output format, which would be beneficial.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with multiple sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is informative but somewhat dense; breaking into clearer sections would improve structure. No wasted words, but could be more succinct for key points.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, the description covers parameter usage and constraints well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., HTML content of the note). This omission leaves the agent without full context on the tool's output.

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 100%, so the description adds value by clarifying the relationship between pid and note_id (number vs string), when to use each parameter, and providing examples of valid values. This goes beyond the schema's type descriptions.

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 'Read a remote note inside a connected knowledge base', specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'federated_search' and 'note_html' by emphasizing it reads real content from a leaf corpus, not hub cards.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool: as the standard way to descend into a leaf corpus, contrasting with hub cards. Provides guidance on parameter selection: prefer path or match_id over pid/note_id, and gives examples of how to copy fields from federated_search. Also warns about federation depth limit.

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 provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that returns include snippets with breadcrumbs, toc_path, and kb_id; that nesting is recursive up to 3 levels deep; and that omitting both kb_id and kb_ids fans out across all bases. The canonical call pattern further clarifies expected usage.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers return format, parameter usage, nesting rules, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though the density might benefit from slight reordering.

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 complexity of federated search and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values, nesting depth limits, fan-out behavior, and provides a canonical call pattern. It addresses all key aspects needed for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the '/' nesting semantics for kb_id, the relationship between kb_id and kb_ids, and the context of detail_limit producing lightweight previews. This enhances the agent's understanding of how parameters interact.

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 ('search') and the resource ('connected knowledge bases'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search' by emphasizing the federated nature and providing a canonical call pattern. The return format (snippets with breadcrumbs, toc_path, kb_id) is explicitly described.

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: pass kb_id for one base, kb_ids for selected bases, or omit both to fan out. It explains nesting with '/' and gives a canonical call example. While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when to use plain 'search' instead), the context is clear.

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, but description adequately conveys it is a read-only similarity operation on remote notes. Does not detail algorithm or side effects, but suffices for a straightforward 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?

One sentence with a clarifying fragment, no unnecessary words. Action is 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?

Lacks mention of return format or behavior for multiple parameters provided. Sufficient for basic understanding but could elaborate on expected output and edge cases.

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 covers parameter descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by specifying preference for 'path' and instructing to copy from federated_search result fields, aiding parameter selection.

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 'Find... similar to a known note reference' and specifies resource 'remote notes' within a 'connected knowledge base'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'similar' (local) and 'federated_search' (search).

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?

Implicitly suggests using 'path' from federated_search results, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'similar' or conditions to avoid.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or if any side effects occur. The simple nature of the tool (no parameters) partly mitigates this, but transparency is still minimal.

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. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 should explain what 'full tool reference' entails (e.g., returns a list of tools, descriptions, or instructions). The current description is too vague for an agent to understand its exact utility.

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 (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, but since there are none, this is acceptable.

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 'Full tool reference for the trip2g documentation base' indicates the tool provides a comprehensive reference or instructions about the documentation base, but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'list', 'retrieve') and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'federated_instructions'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'expand', 'search', or 'federated_instructions'. There is no mention of preconditions 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the scope of reading (whole note vs focused chunk) and cost implications (cheaper for match_id). It also warns about input formats and common mistakes like confusing paths with IDs.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections and examples. Each sentence adds information; however, slightly tighter phrasing could improve conciseness. Still, it is highly efficient for the amount of detail provided.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all usage patterns, warns about pitfalls, and explains how to use results from sibling tools. No missing context is evident.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds substantial value beyond schema properties. It explains formats (e.g., path is a string like 'concepts/x.md', match_id is 'p<pid>:c<chunk>'), provides examples of valid values, and clarifies which parameters are preferred and when.

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 reads notes, and distinguishes between reading whole notes (via path), focused chunks (via match_id), and specific sections (via toc_path). It uses specific verbs like 'read' and provides canonical call patterns, differentiating it from siblings like expand or search.

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 tells when to use each parameter (path vs match_id vs toc_path) and warns against inventing IDs. It provides concrete examples of canonical calls and clarifies that pid/note_id should only be used if copied verbatim from a result.

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 bears the full burden. It explains the return structure, match_id format, and the behavior of detail_limit (full snippets vs lightweight previews). It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the main behaviors are transparent.

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 relatively long but well-organized: it starts with purpose, then details return fields, and ends with the drill-down workflow. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (breadcrumbs, note_path, note_id, match_id) and provides a complete workflow for using search in conjunction with sibling tools. It is self-contained and clear.

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%: limit, query, detail_limit all have descriptions. The description adds value by specifying defaults (limit=6, detail_limit=3) and explaining how detail_limit affects results (full snippets vs lightweight previews), going beyond the schema.

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 'Search notes by query' and details the return format including breadcrumbs, toc_path, and match_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like note_html and expand by describing a drill-down workflow, establishing search as the entry point.

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 a step-by-step drill-down workflow (1-search, 2-call note_html or expand, 3-note_html with match_id) and explains the detail_limit parameter for controlling snippet detail. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use search, the workflow guidance is clear.

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 provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Find related notes' but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what 'related' means, or any side effects. More explicit safety or behavioral details are needed.

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 concise sentences that immediately convey purpose and preferred usage. No filler or redundant information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about return format, behavior (e.g., ordering, pagination), and what constitutes a 'related note'. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds only the preference for 'path' over other identifiers, which is minor added value. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it finds related notes from a known note reference, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'expand' or 'search', but the function is clear.

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?

It mentions prefering the 'path' parameter and suggests using it after opening a promising note for nearby context. This gives implied usage guidance but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns instructions, performs a read-only operation, or has side effects. The description carries the full burden but fails to reveal any meaningful 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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of only five words and does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool name.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or how it relates to sibling tools. The tool appears intended to provide instructions, but the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. Per the rules, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 'Wiki Knowledge Base Instructions' is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name without specifying a clear verb or action. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like 'instructions' or 'search', leaving the agent uncertain about what this tool actually does.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'federated_instructions' or 'search'. The description provides no context for selecting this tool in a given scenario.

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