Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Source symbols are evidence only', 'executable=true only for Molexp bind', and 'sources is intersected with knowledgeScope when set'. These go beyond annotations, but the phrasing is technical and ambiguous.

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 very short, which is efficient, but the cryptic phrasing (e.g., 'Molexp bind', 'evidence only') makes it less communicative than a clearer, slightly longer explanation would be. It is not front-loaded in a way that aids quick comprehension.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly call the tool without external context. It doesn't explain parameter formats, defaults, or the meaning of 'knowledgeScope', leaving critical gaps for a complex tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and 7 parameters, the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation. It only touches on 'sources' (via 'source=' and the intersection note) and leaves mode, path, kinds, limit, and namespaces completely unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Index helper' to 'find refs', which gives a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't clarify what kind of references or how they differ from siblings like 'outline' or 'packages'. The purpose is distinguishable from 'info' or 'suggest' but the wording is cryptic and assumes domain knowledge.

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 says 'prefer after packages/outline, with source=' which is a clear recommendation about when to use it relative to siblings, and hints at a required parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or when alternatives are better, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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