pyrosetta_introspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which are consistent with the description's statement that the tool is read-only and depends on a local installation. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning it 'returns docs and signatures,' but could further clarify that results are limited to installed classes.

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, each carrying essential information: function, use case, and requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and leaves no room for fluff.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use, and a key dependency. It lacks detail about output format and potential empty results, but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly among many siblings.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are already clear. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for any parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the resource as 'PyRosetta API classes' with concrete types (movers, filters, selectors, task operations). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on discovering available classes and retrieving constructor details, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'Use to discover available PyRosetta classes or get constructor details.' It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires local installation'). However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_cached_docs or search_rosetta_web_docs.

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