describe_anatomy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or safety implications. It states that it is backed by a generated, versioned catalog and uses 'Introspect,' which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool makes no modifications or state changes.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a brief explanation of default behavior, and a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the text is concise without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description adequately covers usage modes and return behaviors. It explains what happens with no arguments and what happens when specific parameters are passed, making it complete for an agent to use effectively. No critical context is missing.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the two optional parameters, but the description fills this gap completely. It enumerates the allowed values for 'kind' and provides concrete examples for 'id,' making the parameters understandable and actionable.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Introspect') and resource ('Company Brain's own anatomy'), listing the specific types of entities it covers (services, data-stores, domains, actions). It also distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on the internal anatomy catalog, which is a unique and well-scoped intent.

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 explicit usage instructions for both modes: with no arguments it returns a self-summary, and with kind/id it describes a specific part. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest guidance level.

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