erinys_dream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at a batch operation but fails to state whether it mutates memory, requires an active session, or has side effects. The meaning of 'Dream Cycle' is left unexplained, leaving the agent without critical operational context.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence without waste. However, it is under-specified, which technically reduces clarity, yet the structure itself is appropriate and every word adds some meaning.

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 availability of an output schema, return values are presumably covered, but the description lacks context about when the Dream Cycle should be invoked, its relationship to sibling tools, and any state changes. As a batch operation, more context is needed about prerequisites and effects to make the tool safely usable.

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 mention 'max_collisions.' While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation by explaining how the parameter influences the batch collision process, such as limits or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the 'Dream Cycle' as a distinct operation, further elaborated as 'batch collision of candidate memory pairs.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'erinys_collide' by emphasizing the batch aspect, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, relationships to session tools, or cases where other collision-related tools might be preferred. The description gives no contextual usage hints.

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