enrich

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose idempotency, persistence, and the handling of unevaluated temporal families. However, it incorrectly claims 'No arguments' while the schema defines a 'format' parameter, which is a serious misstatement that misleads about invocation. This is a transparency failure beyond any good elements.

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 packed with useful information (benefit, persistence, idempotency) and is reasonably structured. It is long but each sentence carries meaning. The false 'No arguments' is a glaring error, but otherwise the text is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 (no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the effect, side effects, and idempotent behavior well. It misses nothing major except that it fails to mention the 'format' parameter (due to the false claim) and does not describe the output format, though the schema already covers that. Overall quite complete, but the parameter misinformation detracts.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (format), so baseline is 3, but the description directly contradicts the schema by stating 'No arguments.' This actively misleads the agent into believing there are no parameters, undermining the schema's documentation. The description adds negative value by being factually wrong about the parameter count.

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: warming sidecars to speed up subsequent flow_pass/leads/candidates/explain calls. It specifies the resource ('this graph's sidecars', dataflow tier, catalog) and the action (folds, binds, persists), and even distinguishes itself by naming the sibling tools it benefits. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 when to use the tool: before flow_pass/leads/candidates/explain to avoid cold costs. It also indicates idempotency, so calling it repeatedly is safe and a no-op if already done. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any alternative tools for the same task, leaving some inference required.

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