timps_research_scout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output structure and depth options, which is useful. However, it omits behaviors like whether the tool performs live web searches, uses internal knowledge, has rate limits, or can fail on obscure topics. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It lists the output sections and depth options without any fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers both input (topic, depth) and the expected return format. It is complete enough for invocation, though it lacks details on how depth levels differ semantically and does not address edge cases. The sibling context is not leveraged for differentiation, but the core invocation needs are met.

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 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description's mention of depth options ('quick, medium (default), deep') largely repeats the schema's default and description, adding minimal new meaning. The topic parameter is self-explanatory, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 performs deep-dive research on any topic and specifies the structured brief it returns (key findings, consensus view, controversies, recommended actions, sources). This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling research tools like timps_research_agent or timps_deep_research_agent, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timps_web_search, timps_research_agent, or timps_deep_research_agent. It merely states 'any topic' without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate selection.

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