constellation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds: it explains what is returned, what is dropped, how the drop is reported under `neighbourhood`, why `citedPaper` should be trusted over `paperDoi`, and why missing steps in `stepsPresent` are normal. This is unusually transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, then moves into output behavior and caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value, including the concrete 64-of-98 example, which illustrates the need for the compact projection rather than padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns, what it deliberately omits, and how to interpret tricky fields like `citedPaper`, `disagreesWithReported`, and `stepsPresent`. It is complete for practical invocation and interpretation.

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 description gives semantic meaning to `uri` ('published nanopub URI') and indirectly hints at `depth` via the 'depth-5 neighbourhood' discussion, but it never explains `max_nodes`. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter underdocumented.

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 names the specific resource ('FORRT chain(s) reachable from a published nanopub URI') and the precise action ('Call this to see an existing chain'), while contrasting it with the raw Science Live constellation. This clearly differentiates the tool from its raw sibling and leaves no ambiguity about what it returns.

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?

It gives concrete trigger scenarios: before starting a replication, when extending someone else's chain, or after publishing your own. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say 'do not use when...', but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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