aeterna_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects of sharing knowledge, whether browsing is read-only, or any persistence or permission requirements. The description talks about the content of the knowledge base but not what happens when the tool is invoked, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool that has both read and write actions.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides relevant background about the knowledge base and its domains. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 params, two actions, no output schema or annotations), the description is not complete. It lacks guidance on what distinguishes browsing from sharing, what information is returned, and any behavioral caveats. The background about NYX and domains is nice context but doesn't cover the operational details needed for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., action enum, domain, content). The description adds high-level context about domains but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns, so the baseline 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 states the tool's function: 'Browse or share knowledge in AETERNA.' This gives a specific verb (browse/share) and resource (knowledge). It also provides useful context about the knowledge base contents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like aeterna_explore, which might also involve browsing, so it misses the top score.

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 implies usage: use this tool to browse or share knowledge in AETERNA. It mentions the knowledge base and domains, giving a sense of when it would be relevant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or workflows, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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