get_enrichment_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what the output contains beyond vague categories, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence is a fragment that is not immediately clear. It is somewhat concise but sacrifices clarity. The key information is front-loaded, but the phrasing is ambiguous.

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?

While the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not explain what specific items are returned or how to interpret them. Given the number of sibling tools, the description should provide more context on the nature of 'enrichment targets' and the expected output format.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 implies the tool returns unconnected items from deterministic scanners (docs, isolated nodes, etc.), but it does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves these items. The verb 'get' is in the name, but the description does not clearly articulate the action. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is vague.

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 mentions 'Contribute findings via upsert_edge', which suggests a follow-up action, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'get_node' or 'list_incidents'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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