antientropy_glob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool does (returns matching articles with titles and category paths) and provides examples of pattern usage, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid patterns. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details about pattern matching, concrete examples, and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and readable.

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 moderate complexity (pattern matching with glob syntax), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and examples well. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error handling or performance limits, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains what the pattern matches against ('virtual path: {category_path}/{slug}'), provides concrete examples of valid patterns, and clarifies the default pattern '**' means 'all'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 with specific verb ('Find articles') and resource ('matching a glob pattern'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on pattern-based matching rather than category listing (antientropy_categories), content searching (antientropy_grep), or direct article reading (antientropy_read).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (finding articles by glob pattern against virtual paths) and includes helpful examples, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the pattern focus implicitly suggests it's for path-based matching rather than content searching.

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