omniseek_curator_view

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it explicitly declares 'Never mutates', details the distinct behavior of each 'what' value, states what happens when no packet is built, and specifies that unknown values return an error dict listing valid values.

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 long but earns its length: it covers three distinct views, parameter constraints, error behavior, and protocol sequencing in a scannable bullet format. The most important information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides richly detailed context for every view, including the draft packet structure, the audit dossier contents, the absence of a verdict key, and the recommended follow-up call to omniseek_curator_act. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0% and there are no enums, yet the description fully documents all three parameters: 'what' with its three valid values, 'state' with the full allowed list, and 'candidate_id' as the sole selector for the packet view. It also explains how invalid values behave.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'READ curator state: queue | packet | audit' and names the exact protocol context. It also distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling omniseek_curator_act by explicitly saying it never mutates.

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 opening line gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use WHEN running the source-curation protocol (judge the admission queue or a source audit)'. It also names the next-step alternative, omniseek_curator_act, for rendering verdicts after reading the audit view.

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