coherra_onboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers side effects well: writes to Sibyl Memory, auto-repairs duplicates and stale entries, and flags contradictions for manual review. It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the pipeline description is substantially 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 well-structured with an opening summary, a numbered pipeline, an Args section, and a Returns example. It is detailed without being redundant and front-loads the core purpose. The format makes the behavior easy to parse for an agent.

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 complexity, the lack of annotations, and the minimal input schema, the description covers the essential aspects: accepted inputs, processing steps, and the return contract. It could be more complete with error behavior or a concrete example, but it is sufficiently informative 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's minimal 'import_data: object' definition. It does so by enumerating accepted forms: flat dicts, nested dicts, lists of dicts, and lists of strings. It adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of providing an explicit example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import JSON data from another tool into Coherra.' It then names a concrete pipeline with six steps, making its role distinct from sibling tools like audit, repair, or remember. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when bringing JSON exports from another tool into Coherra, and the pipeline steps show it is the onboarding entry point. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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