hyperspace_query_planner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: it may request multiple-choice clarification from the user and fans queries out into parallel sub-queries. It does not say whether it only plans (returning sub-queries for the caller to execute) or actually performs the search, nor whether clarification halts execution — a real behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the role and then the two concrete behaviors. Nothing repeats the tool name or title and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what comes back — presumably either a clarification request or a list of sub-queries — but it only gestures at this. For a planning tool whose output shape determines the agent's next step, that leaves a notable gap.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces 'parallel sub-queries' for max_sub_queries but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific function: pre-search intent evaluation that detects ambiguous queries and decomposes multi-part queries into parallel sub-queries. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from retrieval siblings like hyperspace_search_text, though it never acknowledges clarify_and_split_intent, which appears to overlap almost exactly.

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?

'Evaluates user intent before vector search' implies a position in the pipeline, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules are given. Critically, there is no guidance on when to pick this over the near-identical sibling clarify_and_split_intent, leaving the agent to guess.

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