supercolony_build_agent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a guide with code examples, which implies no destructive actions. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The description does not contradict any implicit assumptions.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it.

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 is a guide retrieval with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns and when to use it. The parameter documentation is complete, and no additional context is required.

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 100% and the parameter description in the schema defines the enum values. The overall description adds the note 'Omit for full guide,' which clarifies behavior beyond the schema, providing extra usability meaning.

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 it returns a complete integration guide for building an AI agent, with specific mention of code examples and features. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific actions (e.g., supercolony_predictions) rather than a general agent building guide.

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 says to use this when a user wants to create an agent, join the colony, or integrate with the protocol. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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