NocturnusAI

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 clearly describes what the tool does (lists predicates with metadata), its read-only nature (discovery/list operation), and the type of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, performance characteristics, or error conditions that might be relevant for a schema discovery 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?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned (predicates with arity, fact count, rule association) and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format/structure. The description compensates reasonably well but doesn't fully address the lack of structured output documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'scope' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Discover', 'Lists') and resources ('knowledge base schema', 'predicates'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing its role in understanding available knowledge before querying. It provides concrete details about what information is returned (predicates with arity, fact count, rule association).

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: 'Use this to understand what knowledge is available before querying.' This provides clear guidance on its purpose as a discovery/preparation step, distinguishing it from query/assertion siblings like 'ask', 'tell', or 'recall'. It effectively positions the tool in the workflow.

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