mrholmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It repeatedly claims the tool is 'safe' and lists actions like 'cleanup' and 'live_test' without explaining side effects, required permissions, or destructive potential. The description gives hints but lacks necessary behavioral detail for safe invocation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately listing actions. Every sentence provides essential information with no wasted words, achieving high 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each action does, what return values look like, or error handling. A tool with multiple actions requires more detail for the agent to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 50%. The description adds an example for the 'argv' parameter and enumerates the enum values of 'action', but the schema already lists the enum. For other parameters ('dry_run', 'timeout'), no additional meaning is provided. The example is helpful but the compensation for low coverage is insufficient.

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 it is a single safe utility-suite tool for the Mr.Holmes OSINT integration, listing all available actions. This provides a specific verb and resource, and even without siblings, the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the tool with one of the eight listed actions, and specifies that the 'run' action accepts argv for safe commands only. This gives clear context for when to use each action, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives since no sibling tools exist.

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