reverse_discover_signature_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only analysis operation (compare, rank), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any limitations, performance considerations, or input requirements. The description leaves the agent uncertain about whether this tool mutates state or has other behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and goal. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose. No wasted words, but it omits useful context.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description does not clarify what entry_ids refer to (e.g., from a capture session) or what constitutes 'multiple requests'. It provides a basic understanding but lacks sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly without additional information, such as where the entry IDs come from or any prerequisites.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the sole parameter, entry_ids. The description only hints that these represent 'multiple requests' but does not explain what they are, their expected format, or any constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance on how to populate the argument.

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 action ('compare' and 'rank') on a specific resource ('multiple requests') with a clear goal ('fields that look signature-related'). It clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar analysis tools like reverse_analyze_live_signature_flow. The purpose is understandable but could be sharper in differentiating from siblings.

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 description implies usage when you have multiple requests and want to identify signature fields, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling tools, which is insufficient for confident tool selection.

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