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 explains the backward chaining mechanism and supports Negation-as-Failure, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions, performance implications, or what happens when rules conflict, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, key syntax details, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with complex parameters but no annotations.

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 the tool (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job explaining the core logical concepts. However, it doesn't cover return values or error cases, which would be helpful given the absence of both annotations and output schema.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about variable syntax ('?x, ?who') and the logical relationship between head and body, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Define a logical rule for automatic reasoning' with specific details about backward chaining and variable syntax. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tell' (assert facts) and 'ask' (query) by focusing on rule definition rather than fact manipulation or querying.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Define a logical rule for automatic reasoning') and includes an example that illustrates typical usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies it's for rule definition rather than other operations.

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