temporal_incursion

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only lookup ('look up', 'describe') and mentions a secondary capability ('fetch details from Memory Alpha'), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences that directly state the primary purpose and a secondary capability. There is no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential function but misses details about the response format, the random event behavior (only present in the schema), and how the Memory Alpha integration is triggered or used. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 complete description of the single parameter, including examples and the default random behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score 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 specifies the tool looks up Star Trek time-travel events and describes the temporal paradox and resolution, which distinguishes it from generic episode or article lookups like get_episode or search_memory_alpha. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_episode or get_timeline. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without enough information to make a selection decision.

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