NocturnusAI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns facts based on temporal bounds (validFrom, validUntil, ttl) and is read-only (implied by 'recall' and 'query'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would be helpful for a query 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. Each sentence adds value: the second explains the return behavior, and the third provides usage context. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 a time-travel query tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or advanced usage, which could hinder an agent's ability 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'respecting temporal bounds (validFrom, validUntil, ttl)', which provides context for how parameters like 'timestamp' interact with data, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 'Time-travel query: recall what was known at a specific point in time' and 'Returns facts that were valid at the given timestamp', providing a specific verb (recall) and resource (facts/knowledge). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on temporal queries rather than operations like 'aggregate', 'cleanup', or 'teach', though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 implies usage context with 'Useful for debugging agent behavior or reconstructing past state', suggesting when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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