perseus_include

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms read-only, adding behavioral details like recursive resolution, inheritance of parent configuration, and parameter effects (last, since). Could expand on error handling.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: first states core purpose, second gives use cases with parameters, third explains mode. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a read-only tool with good annotations. Could mention error behavior or limitations, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters; description adds contextual meaning (e.g., 'bounds a growing log' for last, 'recent dated sections' for since) beyond schema descriptions, though not exhaustive for mode.

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 tool includes and renders another Perseus source file with recursive directive resolution, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative modes (mode=reference) for files the host agent already loads natively.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (compose context, share common sections, bound growing files) and when not to (use mode=reference for host-loaded files), addressing alternatives directly.

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