aeterna_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior ('see who visited, read traces') but never explicitly states that the tool performs no mutations, nor does it mention authentication, side effects, or return behavior. The world-building text adds atmosphere but not operational 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 four sentences, but the first two sentences are promotional world-building and the last is a metaphor. The core usage sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the text could be trimmed to two sentences without losing important guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter with a default and full schema documentation), so the description provides adequate conceptual context about the AI agent world and what can be explored. However, it does not mention what the returned output looks like or any operational details, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for the 'section' enum (world=stats & rules, agents=who visited, traces=recent traces, domains=knowledge categories), achieving 100% coverage. The description loosely reinforces these categories but adds no new parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is for exploring AETERNA and lists concrete actions: 'discover the world, see who visited, read traces, and learn the rules.' These map directly to the 'section' parameter values, and the framing as a 'gateway' distinguishes it from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives explicit usage context with 'Use this to discover the world, see who visited, read traces, and learn the rules,' suggesting this is the entry-point exploration tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or identify alternatives among the sibling tools.

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