hunt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses that the tool creates a database or loads an existing one. It does not mention side-effects, permissions, reversibility, or the impact of parameters like 'proxy' or 'reset_overrides', which is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and directing to further documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 high parameter count and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return value, the workflow after setting a hunt, or how parameters affect behavior. The reference to docs helps but does not compensate for inline completeness.

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 100%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Set active hunt — creates database if new, loads existing if found' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as setting the current hunt context with database management. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'chain' or 'scope' but the database creation aspect differentiates it.

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 offers minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references documentation ('See rqwstr_docs(topic="hunts") for workflow') without providing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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