NebulaMind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context about the data source (NebulaMind's knowledge base) and domain constraint (astronomy), but omits explicit safety traits (read-only), rate limits, or response format details that annotations would typically cover.

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action (Ask a question), followed by clarifying context after the em-dash (answered using NebulaMind's knowledge base). Every clause earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter) and existence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and data source. Could improve by noting read-only behavior (absent annotations), but sufficient for agent selection.

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 has 0% description coverage (title only). The description partially compensates by implying the 'question' parameter should contain an astronomy query via 'Ask a question about astronomy,' but lacks explicit constraints, format guidance, or examples expected when schema coverage is absent.

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 verb (Ask), resource (question), and scope (astronomy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_page or get_knowledge_graph by emphasizing natural language querying against NebulaMind's knowledge base.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_page (for specific document retrieval) or get_knowledge_graph (for structured entity relationships). No mention of precedents or exclusion criteria.

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