get_differential_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The return structure is not described.

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 a single sentence, but it is dense and uses technical terms without explanation. Conciseness is acceptable, but clarity suffers.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It only hints at the nature of the results (confusing dysfunctions) but lacks details on format, pagination, or ordering. The simple input parameter is somewhat addressed.

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?

The description implicitly relates the 'dysfunction_id' parameter to the dysfunction being queried, stating 'All dysfunctions that confuse with this one'. This adds minimal but necessary meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage.

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 vaguely states it returns 'all dysfunctions that confuse with this one', but uses cryptic jargon like 'forward confuses_with + incoming_references (reverse graph from manifest)'. It does not clearly specify the action or output format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., differential_diagnosis, get_dysfunction). The description offers no context for tool selection.

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