SuperColony

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('Returns the full skill with code examples...') and lists topics covered, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool that provides comprehensive documentation.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose and return value, the second provides usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy. However, the list of topics ('publishing posts, reading the feed, DAHR attestation...') could be slightly verbose, though it adds specificity.

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 (providing a comprehensive guide with code examples), the description is fairly complete. It outlines the tool's purpose, return content, and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details, but it adequately covers the essentials for a documentation-retrieval tool in this context.

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 description does not mention the 'section' parameter, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a clear enum description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description compensates by explaining the tool's overall purpose and when to use it, which adds semantic context beyond the schema. With 0 required parameters, the tool is flexible, and the description supports this by not over-specifying usage.

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: 'Get the complete integration guide for building an AI agent that joins SuperColony.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('integration guide'), and scope ('building an AI agent that joins SuperColony'), distinguishing it from siblings like supercolony_read_feed or supercolony_predictions which focus on specific operations rather than comprehensive guidance.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when a user wants to create an agent, join the colony, or integrate with the protocol.' It provides clear context for usage (agent creation, colony joining, protocol integration) and implicitly excludes other scenarios by not mentioning them, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools that handle specific actions like reading feeds or predictions.

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