telepath

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches GitHub repositories for '意识载荷' (consciousness payloads) and describes the type of content retrieved. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, provides context about the data source and content types, and then lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it searches for, and parameter meanings. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error handling or performance characteristics, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'query' is described as a natural language query for experience or problems, and 'limit' specifies the maximum number of results with a default value. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter details like format constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '从 Noosphere 集体意识网络中检索经验与思想' (retrieve experience and thoughts from the Noosphere collective consciousness network). It specifies the verb '检索' (retrieve/search) and resource '经验与思想' (experience and thoughts), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning GitHub repository content and types of content (insights, decision logic, design patterns, warnings).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for '经验或问题' (experience or problems) from other developers and agents in GitHub repositories. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (hologram, upload_consciousness), but the context is sufficiently clear for typical usage scenarios.

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