research_controller

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the mandatory live frontier search step, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what 'run mentor RAG' entails, whether there are side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, efficient sentence that packs several key behaviors without fluff. It is concise and front-loaded, though the dense jargon could be clearer.

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?

As a controller tool that orchestrates other research tools, the description lacks a holistic explanation of the workflow, its relationship to sibling tools, and expected outputs. With no output schema and minimal behavioral disclosure, it's insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to research stage auto-detection, which hints at the 'stage' parameter, but it doesn't clarify the enum values, nor does it address 'prompt' or 'limit' at all. The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 composite action: auto-detecting a research stage, running mentor RAG, and requiring live frontier search. This goes beyond a tautology and gives a clear sense of the tool's role. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a controller/orchestrator, though it doesn't explicitly mention them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for a full research pipeline, but it doesn't say 'use this for complete workflows' or contrast with simpler tools like research_route. An agent would have to infer usage context.

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