mirror_universe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting that the tool 'Checks Memory Alpha for a dedicated mirror article,' implying a read operation with potential for no dedicated article. However, it does not specify what happens when no mirror article exists or the exact nature of the returned content, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds valuable behavioral context without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what kind of subjects it handles, and its data source. There is no nested complexity or additional behavior that would require more explanation.

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 input schema already provides a comprehensive description for the 'subject' parameter, covering what it accepts and examples. The tool description echoes the same concepts (character, ship, or event) without adding new details. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: to describe the mirror universe version of a Star Trek character, ship, or event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like character_lookup or get_starship by specifying the mirror universe scope and the source (Memory Alpha).

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need the mirror universe counterpart of a Star Trek subject. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the specific scope is evident enough that the usage context is clear.

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