cross_pollinate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool searches specific tables and returns top 5 items, but does not mention idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It implicitly shows it's a read operation but doesn't confirm.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It uses bullet-style for the return format and clearly lists the argument. No fluff, though adding structured sections could improve readability.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return values. It specifies the tables searched and number of results. However, with no annotations, missing behavioral details slightly reduce completeness.

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?

Only one parameter 'content' with 0% schema coverage. The description adds minimal meaning ('Text to find cross-domain connections for'), but does not elaborate on format, length, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 finds cross-domain connections for given text, specifies the exact tables searched (library_seeded, meetings, news_briefs, ideas), and describes the return format (top 5 with source type, title, snippet). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_connections'.

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 lists the tables searched but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_library, search_memory). No when-not-to-use or scenarios are mentioned.

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