NocturnusAI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (stores knowledge), supports auto-expiration mechanisms, confidence scoring, and configurable conflict resolution. It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or side effects, but covers essential mutation behavior adequately.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose, followed by a compact list of key features. Every phrase adds value: the first sentence defines the action and purpose, the second enumerates capabilities without redundancy. No wasted words 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 mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and key features. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but covers the tool's purpose, storage behavior, and main capabilities sufficiently given the complexity.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'ttl', 'validUntil', 'confidence', and 'conflictStrategy' by name, adding minimal semantic context about their purposes (e.g., 'auto-expiration', 'confidence scoring'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Assert a fact into the knowledge base') and resource ('knowledge base'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ask' (query) or 'retract_pattern' (remove). It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the storage purpose and logical reasoning context.

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 ('Stores knowledge that can be queried and used in logical reasoning') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_assert' (for multiple facts) or 'teach' (which might have different semantics). It provides clear purpose but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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