mnemosyne_pheme_radar

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the freshness of results, the 'No radar' condition, the prerequisite of the app running, and the structure of the answer (leads with scan time). This fully discloses the tool's behavior and is consistent with the annotations.

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 about 100 words, but every sentence adds value: it explains the tool's purpose, output semantics, freshness, usage, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though slightly longer than strictly necessary for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers all essential information: what results are returned (threads with scores and tiers), the freshness caveat, the 'No radar' handling, and the runtime prerequisite. An agent can confidently decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the tier parameter by explaining what a tier means ('how much substance they can bring to that thread'). It also clarifies the output includes topic scores and tiers, which helps agents decide whether to filter by tier. The limit parameter is well-covered by the schema alone.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Pheme radar', and explains what it returns: fresh threads from subreddits and Hacker News queries. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like mnemosyne_pheme_watch by focusing on reading results rather than setting up watches, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use it to find threads to draft a reply for') and contextual conditions like the need for the app running and the 'No radar' edge case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the read/watch distinction is implicit.

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