Argus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'smoke-test' implies a read-only health check, the description does not confirm idempotency, error behavior, side effects, or what 'smoke-test' actually validates.

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?

Extremely brief at four words. While not verbose, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. Every word earns its place, but critical information is omitted.

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 (reducing the need to document returns), the description fails to explain the two parameters or behavioral traits. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, additional context is mandatory but missing.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly references the 'provider' parameter but provides no information on valid values, format, or what the 'query' parameter represents (despite its specific default value 'argus').

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 'smoke-test' and identifies the resource 'provider', but leaves 'provider' ambiguous (API provider? search provider?) without domain context. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (search/extract tools) by being a testing utility.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_web or extract_content, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases (e.g., validation before production queries).

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