Generate EQL class combinations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what it generates but does not discuss side effects, safety, or any non-obvious behavior. It is minimally transparent; a 3 is appropriate as it gives a basic understanding without contradictions.

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, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the complexity of generating combinations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format, how combinations are generated (e.g., order, uniqueness), or the role of parameters. This leaves an agent with insufficient context.

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 description coverage is 67% (exclude and include have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds no parameter information, failing to explain how limit, exclude, or include affect the output. This is a significant gap.

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 generates three-class EQL combinations from 16 public wiki classes, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from a validator, which helps clarify its role among sibling tools.

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 context that it is a planning helper, not a validator, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given sibling tools are mostly for fetching content, the guidance is sufficient.

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