mnemosyne_pheme_watch

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: operations that would empty a list are refused, each operation reports a specific outcome ('done, already there, not there, refused'), the user receives a receipt naming the agent and what changed, and the tool scans/posts nothing. This fully discloses side effects, refusal behavior, and reporting, with no contradiction to 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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary behavioral details. A few sentences are somewhat narrative ('Pheme is their reputation cartridge...'), but each sentence contributes useful context about outcomes, receipts, or prerequisites. It is appropriately sized for a mutation tool with one nested parameter.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, domain, side effects, refusal behavior, return-like outcome reporting, and runtime prerequisite. An agent has enough guidance to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, with the schema already documenting the op/kind/value fields and their enums. The description adds domain framing (Pheme radar, lists, outcomes) but does not introduce additional parameter syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the 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 states a specific action ('Add... or take one off') with a specific resource (subreddits, Hacker News search queries, topics on the Pheme radar). It also defines the domain concept 'Pheme' and distinguishes the edit-and-remove operation from mere viewing, which likely separates it from sibling mnemosyne_pheme_radar.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use it when a conversation finds a community worth watching.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Needs the app running, though Pheme itself can be closed'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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