drill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral trait that bodies come back as EXCERPTS rather than full text, plus the exact edge types included. It stops short of permissions or any error behavior, but the key return-shape caveat is surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the excerpt caveat, then the sibling routing. No filler and well front-loaded.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is returned and its excerpted form. The main gap is the unexplained `initiative` parameter, which an agent may need before calling.

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 50%: `name` is documented in the schema and reinforced by the description's node/name context, but the `initiative` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

States a specific verb (drill) and resource (a node) and precisely what comes back: its brief plus one hop of children, with the edge semantics named (sources via derived_from, parts via part_of). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like at and between.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use `at <name>` for the whole text and `between a b` for the edges rather than the neighbours. Both alternatives and the conditions that select them are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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