research_mentor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return values, prerequisites, or any operational traits beyond the vague 'combine' statement, leaving the agent without critical safety or behavior information.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information, making the brevity a liability rather than an asset.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, required fields, enum) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool or interpret its results.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (stage, decision, limit). Although 'stage' appears in the phrase 'stage RAG retrieval', it does not clarify the parameter's meaning, format, or how it relates to the decision parameter.

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 'Combine stage RAG retrieval with 12-Skill specialist method selection' but lacks a clear verb+resource structure. It does not specify what the tool actually does with these components or what output to expect, making it vague and not easily distinguishable 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like research_rag_query and research_route exist, the description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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