erinys_collideCollide two observations by ID manually to generate new insights from their interaction.
Manually collide two observations to generate insight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| obs_a_id | Yes | ||
| obs_b_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an operation that produces insight but does not disclose whether it writes to storage, is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects on the two observations.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the core operation, side effects, and sibling selection ambiguous. For an agent choosing among 28 Erinys tools, this is not sufficient context.
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 implies obs_a_id and obs_b_id are observations but does not explain ID meaning, whether order matters, or what relationship between the two observations is expected.
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 names a verb ('collide') and resource ('two observations'), but 'collide' is undefined jargon and 'generate insight' is vague. It does not clarify how this differs from related siblings such as erinys_link, erinys_traverse, or erinys_conflict_check.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer alternatives, or what preconditions must hold. The word 'manually' hints at an explicit invocation but does not explain the context that should trigger it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.