lilbrain_federation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core behavior—querying across multiple codebases—and 'query' suggests a read-oriented operation, but it does not describe result shape, federation/merge behavior, or side-effect guarantees. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated definition and no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, with only two documented parameters and no nested objects, so a lengthy description is not required. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the response contains and any operational caveats about federated search. It is sufficient for basic selection and invocation but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both the 'query' and 'repos' parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the multi-repo scope, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('query') and resource ('multiple codebases'), and the 'multi-repo federated' qualifier helps distinguish it from single-repo search siblings like lilbrain_search. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'query across multiple codebases at once' implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to search several repositories in a single operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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