Argus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals nothing about side effects, rate limits, what constitutes 'related' links, or the structure/format of returned links despite the existence of an output schema.

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 phrase is brief and front-loaded, but given the total lack of schema descriptions and annotations, this brevity leaves critical information gaps. 'For discovery' adds minimal value without elaborating what discovery entails.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to characterize return values. With zero schema descriptions on 2 parameters and no annotations, the description should explain the query-context relationship and expected link types, but provides none of this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implicitly references 'query' but provides no type hints, format expectations, or explanation of what 'context' parameter does or when to use it.

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 'Expand' as a verb and mentions 'query' and 'related links', giving a basic sense of the operation. However, 'expand' is semantically ambiguous—unclear whether it augments the query text or discovers external URLs. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like search_web or extract_content.

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 provided on when to use this versus search_web or extract_content. No mention of prerequisites, expected query formats, or when the optional 'context' parameter should be supplied.

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