glyphdna_presence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect of the action ('shows fresh in the .skin directory'), the self-reported nature, optional parameters via '?', and a state length constraint. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are sufficiently surfaced.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and places the argument list in parentheses. There is no filler or repetition; every clause contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple publish action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and all parameters with enough detail for an agent to make a call. Minor gaps include lack of explicit return-value expectations and exact type of detail/ttl_seconds, but these are secondary to the core usage.

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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It names all arguments (member_file, state, detail?, ttl_seconds?), provides a path source, a length constraint, an example value, and marks optionality clearly. This fully compensates for the absent schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('presence to glyphdna.live'), adding a concrete effect ('shows fresh in the .skin directory'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like mqtt_pub or network_status by focusing on self-reported presence, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 a prerequisite by noting member_file is 'path saved by join', which tells the agent this should be called after joining. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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