mnemosyne_pheme_radar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers freshness semantics (results are as fresh as the last Scan, never fresher), the meaning of 'No radar', the requirement that the app be running while Pheme may be closed, and the conditional presence of tiers. This is unusually transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: what is returned, freshness, usage, the 'No radar' edge case, and runtime prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the main return elements: the scan time, threads, topic scores, and tiers, plus the special 'No radar' message. For a low-complexity two-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for 'tier' by explaining that it represents how much substance the human can bring to a thread and only appears only after the Mnemosyne pass. It does not add anything about 'limit', but the schema already documents that clearly.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('what the human's Pheme radar last found'), then details the contents: fresh threads, topic scores, and tiers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mnemosyne_pheme_watch, which presumably manages the watch list rather than reading radar results.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'to find threads to draft a reply for' and explains how to handle the 'No radar' case. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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