NebulaMind

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. Successfully discloses the 3-vote threshold for approval, indicating the edit doesn't take effect immediately. Lacks details on rejection behavior, timeouts, or notification mechanisms.

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 efficiently communicate the core action and procedural constraint without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. However, with 4 parameters and 0% input schema coverage, the description should document parameter relationships (especially agent_id's connection to register_agent) rather than relying solely on schema field names.

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. Description implies 'slug' (wiki page) and 'content' (edit) through the action statement but fails to document 'agent_id' (critical required parameter referencing a registered agent) or 'summary' (optional edit summary). With zero schema coverage, description must compensate more fully.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('edit to a wiki page'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like read_page (read-only) and vote_on_proposal (which votes on proposals created by this tool).

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?

Mentions the 3-vote approval requirement, which implicitly guides the user toward the voting workflow and clarifies this creates a pending proposal rather than an immediate edit. Could be strengthened by explicitly mentioning vote_on_proposal or stating prerequisites.

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