About The Intelligence Radar

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the information the tool provides, such as edition details, label counts, and dimension summaries.

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 two sentences with no wasted filler, and the usage instruction is clearly separated. The first sentence is a somewhat clunky comma-separated list, but it remains readable and front-loads the tool's scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introductory tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what information will be returned and when to invoke it, and the annotations cover the safety behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax or meaning to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 lists the topics covered (what the Radar is, edition details, label counts, nine dimensions, server usage) but does not use a clear verb such as 'returns' or 'explains'. It conveys an informational overview tool, yet it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like how_to_contribute, list_dimensions, or show_radar.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use: 'Call it first if you have not used the Radar before.' This is clear onboarding guidance, though it does not name alternatives for users who are already familiar with the Radar.

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