NocturnusAI

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 discloses key behavioral traits: the tool deletes a scope and all facts within it, and the action is irreversible. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or permissions needed, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third warns of irreversibility. No wasted words, making it highly 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 the tool's complexity (destructive, irreversible) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and key behavioral warnings. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error cases (e.g., if the scope doesn't exist) or response details, leaving minor gaps.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'scope' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a knowledge base scope and all facts within it'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cleanup' or 'forget' by specifying it deletes an entire scope with all its facts.

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 states when to use this tool: 'to clean up completed or abandoned hypothetical reasoning branches.' It also provides a critical exclusion: 'This is irreversible,' which helps the agent avoid misuse. This gives clear context for when and when not to invoke it.

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