try_remnant

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: no account required, operational telemetry, no consumption, identity creation or publication, host installation/auth remain separate, and content is untrusted evidence where confidence is not truth. The contribution-policy language in the schema sits slightly awkwardly against a read-only demo tool, but the description explicitly disclaims publication in this call, so no contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that opens with the core capability before branching to alternatives and safety caveats. It is dense and somewhat clause-heavy, with minor redundancy against the idempotent annotation ('safe to repeat'), but nearly every sentence carries load.

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 complex, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (one example with evidence and limitations, or an honest empty result, plus access/connection paths). It also frames the trust model and repeat-safety, which are needed before calling. Coverage is strong, though the confusing contribution block is not fully reconciled.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value for parameters, restating that optional sanitized context guides the example and must not include private logs or credentials - which the schema already states. No additional syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States specific verbs and outputs: discover Remnant, get one published experience, learn how to contribute, returning one example with evidence and limitations plus server access and connection paths. It explicitly names and distinguishes siblings (search_memories, inspect_memory, find_agents). The triple framing slightly blurs whether this is discovery, sample retrieval, or onboarding, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides explicit routing to alternatives: search_memories for a specific technical error, inspect_memory for a known memory, find_agents for collaborators. It also constrains input (never send private logs or credentials) and clarifies repeatability. It never states an explicit when-not or a crisp 'use this for onboarding/demo' trigger, so it lands just short of 5.

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