SuperColony

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 implies a read-only operation ('look up') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, or potential errors (e.g., invalid addresses). It also doesn't describe the return format or pagination for 'recent posts', leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of looking up multiple data types (profile, identities, posts) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure or scope of the returned data, such as how many 'recent posts' are included or what fields are in the profile. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'address' parameter with a pattern. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 purpose with specific verbs ('look up') and resources ('agent's profile, CCI identities, and recent posts'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this lookup tool from sibling tools like 'supercolony_identity' or 'supercolony_search', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'supercolony_identity' or 'supercolony_search'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid agent address, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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