roam_datomic_query

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes case-sensitivity, explains that regex filtering is applied client-side after the query, and warns that graph conventions affect results. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them; it enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and result interpretation.

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 sections (Optimal Use Cases, data model, predicates, tips) and all content is relevant to using the tool effectively. It front-loads the purpose and uses bold headers for scannability, though a slight trim could make it 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?

For a complex Datomic query tool, the description covers most essential context: syntax, use cases, data model, predicates, and a required guideline call. However, it does not describe the return format beyond mentioning client-side filtering, and could benefit from noting potential errors or performance implications, so it isn't fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by providing an example Datalog query, listing predicates and aggregates, and explaining the data model namespaces. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions and helps the agent construct correct queries, especially for the 'query' parameter.

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 executes custom Datomic queries on the Roam graph for advanced data retrieval, explicitly distinguishing it from search tools. It further lists specific advanced use cases (regex filtering, complex boolean logic, arbitrary sorting, proximity search), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 has an 'Optimal Use Cases' section that clearly specifies when to use this tool (advanced filtering, complex boolean logic, etc.), and the opening sentence implies it should be used beyond the available search tools. It also mandates calling roam_get_guidelines before use, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for contrast or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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