spawner_watch_out

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns common pitfalls and avoidance advice, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, error handling, or the exact return format. For a read-only 'get' operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~20 words) and front-loaded with the main action ('Get sharp edges'). Every word adds value, and the parenthetical explanation clarifies the jargon without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what the result contains (pitfalls and how to avoid them). It does not explain return format or edge cases, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient. A higher score would require more detail on output structure, but it's not necessary here.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it just rephrases 'technology' as 'for a technology.' Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sharp edges for a technology'), and explains what sharp edges are (common pitfalls and how to avoid them). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_skill or spawner_skills, which likely focus on other aspects.

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 when to use the tool (when you need pitfalls and warnings for a technology) but does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusions. It lacks clear 'when to use vs when not to use' guidance compared to examples like 'search_calls_extensive'.

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