perseus_mimir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it is read-only, falls back to local FTS5 if Mimir is unreachable, and stores curated facts. No contradictions with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured with no wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral fallback, and data nature. It could elaborate on filter parameter behavior, but the schema already provides that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, but it provides overall context about the query being BM25 FTS5. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal value on top of schema for parameters.

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 explicitly states it queries an external Mimir server for cross-session curated facts, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'perseus_memory' by specifying its use for long-lived knowledge versus fast local recall.

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 provides clear guidance: use for long-lived knowledge (bug patterns, design decisions) and prefer 'perseus_memory' for fast local recall. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the alternative suggestion is strong.

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