Rug Munch Intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: latency (~5-30s) and cost ($0.15). It also hints at the AI's persona (Marcus Aurelius/Claude Sonnet 4) and output format (one-paragraph analysis). However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, efficiently lists output components, and includes operational details (latency, cost) in a single, waste-free sentence. Every element earns its place 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, output format, latency, and cost. It adequately covers the tool's behavioral profile, though could improve by mentioning error cases or output structure more explicitly.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'AI forensic verdict by Marcus Aurelius' with specific outputs (analysis with risk score, key flags, and Stoic wisdom). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_token_risk' or 'marcus_forensics' by emphasizing a philosophical, narrative-driven analysis rather than just technical risk assessment.

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 implies usage for token analysis with optional questions, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'check_token_risk' or 'marcus_forensics'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description.

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