Oversikt over Tua-arkivet

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return contents (projects, tags with counts, newest atoms) and the semantics of the `needs` mode, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the overview scope, then usage triggers, then filtering notes, then the `needs` mode. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical counts phrasing is slightly loose.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the overview returns and covers both filter axes and the `needs` mode. An agent could call it correctly, though default limit behavior is left to the schema and no return-shape details are given.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (tag, project, limit with default, needs enum). The description only adds that `needs` underpins a «Ny gjennomgang», which is marginal beyond the schema's own text; baseline 3 applies.

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 states concretely what the tool produces: an overview of all projects and all tags with counts, plus the newest atoms. That is far more specific than the bare name/title, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like tua_search or tua_get.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions with quoted user utterances («hva har jeg i Tua», «list alt», «hvilke tagger finnes») and explains the special `needs` mode as the basis for a «Ny gjennomgang». It stops short of naming an alternative tool for narrower lookups, so it is not a full 5.

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