ps_enrich_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. It does not state whether this mutates state (implied by advancing to a new stage), whether it requires network/LLM calls, whether re-running is idempotent, or what auth/run preconditions apply. Only the source→target stage movement is communicated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is sized far below what a 4-parameter pipeline-mutation tool needs, so brevity tips into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but the remaining gaps are large: no annotations, four undocumented parameters, and no description of what enrichment produces or the ordering constraints with ps_filter_items. As a stage-mutating pipeline tool it is significantly under-described.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The run_id, config_path, and periscope_path parameters are entirely unexplained, and while 'filtered' faintly echoes the source_stage default, the parameter itself is never described.

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?

It pairs a verb (enrich) with a resource (items) and names the target stage (enriched), which loosely distinguishes it from siblings like ps_fetch_items, ps_score_items, and ps_filter_items. However, 'enrich' is undefined jargon — the agent gets no sense of what enrichment actually does to the items. Purpose is identifiable but vague.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that filtering must precede enrichment, or that a run must exist), and no alternatives named. The phrase 'filtered items' implies a sequencing but nothing is explicit. An agent must infer the pipeline position.

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