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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it performs no model call (deterministic retrieval, no generation) and returns descriptions with IRIs rather than a synthesized answer.

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?

One compact sentence with a clarifying semicolon clause, front-loading the action and following with the key differentiator. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but it leaves 'best-matching' undefined and does not clarify how results relate to sibling tools like 'search'. That missing routing context is the main 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 coverage is 0%, but there is only a single parameter literally named 'question', which the description reproduces ('for a question'). It adds no format, length, or interpretation detail, but the param is self-explanatory, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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 verb and resource: returns descriptions of best-matching items for a question, citing item IRIs. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from pure retrieval or generation, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling 'search', leaving the ask-vs-search boundary to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'no model is called' hints that this is a non-LLM path, but the agent is not told when to prefer 'ask' over 'search' or 'read'.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true is declared and not contradicted, but the description adds essentially no behavior beyond it: it does not say what is computed, whether the operation is deterministic or expensive, or what constitutes a valid selection. 'Closure algebra' hints at a non-trivial computation without explaining it.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only cost is that the brevity is achieved by leaning on an undefined acronym rather than by precision.

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 and no annotations beyond readOnly, the description must explain the operation and its result. It defines neither what the closure algebra produces nor what a slug looks like, which is inadequate for an obscure domain-specific computation.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning by stating the array holds 'item slugs', but gives no slug format, count limits, or ordering semantics.

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 names a distinct operation (run an AGSC-07 closure algebra) and its input (item slugs), so it is not a tautology of the name. However, 'AGSC-07 closure algebra' is undefined jargon with no sibling differentiation against ask/links/propose/read/remember/search, leaving the actual effect opaque.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it competes with. An agent gets no routing signal at all beyond the tool's existence.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no note on return shape, ordering, pagination, or what happens when neither iri nor slug is supplied. 'Authored on one item' hints at a linkage semantic but is not explained.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. Terse, but arguably under-specified rather than over-written, and it wastes nothing.

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?

For a two-param read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should at least identify how the item is addressed and what a Link looks like. As written it leaves both the parameter role and the returned structure unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does not. It never explains what iri or slug mean, whether one identifies the source item, or what happens when both are omitted (required is empty).

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?

It states a specific verb (Return) and resource (typed Links authored on one item), which is more informative than a bare name. However, it leaves key terms undefined — what a 'typed Link' is, and what 'one item' means given the params are iri/slug — and offers no differentiation from siblings like read or search.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as read or search. The agent must guess when this tool is preferable to the other retrieval-oriented siblings.

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

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

The description asserts 'performs no write', but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool is not read-only and may affect state. This is a direct conflict about the tool's safety profile, and an agent relying on the description could wrongly treat it as a harmless read. The partial disclosure that it returns a patch rather than applying it does not resolve the conflict.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return action and wastes no words. The em-dash construction is slightly tangled, but the size is well matched to the payload.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, so the description carries the full burden, which is only partly met. It sketches the returned payload but does not explain what 'at' or 'agent' do, nor what a caller gains from receiving a patch they must apply themselves.

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 0% for all four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It names only task_state and gestures at possible move values (claim, progress, finish), leaving at, agent, and how 'one item' is identified (slug) completely unexplained.

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?

'Return the Proposal payload for one item' gives a verb and resource, and the second clause hints at the content (task_state, a prepared board move). However, 'Proposal payload' is undefined domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like read, compose, or search, which could plausibly return similar data.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The phrase 'performs no write' faintly implies a preview/dry-run role, but the agent is never told when to call propose instead of read, compose, or ask.

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

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe non-mutating read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds the meaningful scoping fact that exactly one item is returned by slug, but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid slug or the shape of the returned item.

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?

A single short front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. It borders on under-specification for a tool whose resource noun is ambiguous, but as raw conciseness and structure it is efficient.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the burden, yet it never defines what an 'item' is or what the return looks like. Given the generic tool name 'read' and its many siblings, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the single 'slug' parameter carries no format, source, or validity detail in the schema. The description only restates the parameter name ('by slug') and does not compensate with any expected format or example, leaving the meaning thin.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and cardinality (one item) plus the lookup key (slug), which is better than a tautology. However, "item" is an undefined resource noun, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling 'search' tool, so an agent cannot tell exactly what domain object is fetched.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus search or any other sibling. The phrase "by slug" weakly implies exact-key retrieval as opposed to querying, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives named.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write bar is covered minimally. The description adds that the result is returned as a Proposal payload, but it is ambiguous whether the item is actually persisted or merely staged, and it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, or actor/agent attribution despite having actor/agent/model params.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core output is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the dense parenthetical jargon ("conforming item", "Proposal payload") reduces immediate comprehension.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a single annotation, the description is far too thin. It partially substitutes for an output schema by naming the Proposal payload, but the overwhelming majority of parameters and the write semantics remain unexplained.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only kind, cluster, and about. Required fields body and title are never defined, and 12 other params (actor, model, severity, outcome, sources, etc.) are left entirely undocumented.

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 does name concrete outputs — a new task (kind task, cluster) or a comment (about) — returned as a Proposal payload, so an agent can infer it creates board items. However, the framing verb "Synthesize a conforming item" is opaque jargon, and it gives no signal to distinguish this from siblings like compose or propose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite nearby siblings (compose, propose, ask). The agent must guess the intended context from the name and examples alone.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no matching semantics, no result limits, no pagination or ordering behavior for what is described as a list-returning tool.

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?

One sentence with no padding and the purpose is front-loaded, which is good. But the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being efficient density, so it lands at minimum viable.

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?

A search tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and undifferentiated siblings needs more than one generic sentence. Return shape, matching behavior, and the choice between this tool and ask/read are all missing.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description does not indicate query syntax, whether it is free text or structured, or how matching is performed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a verb (search) and a resource (this memory) with a hint at the result ('matching items'), but 'this memory' is undefined and the definition never distinguishes itself from siblings like ask or read. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is keyword lookup, semantic retrieval, or a different access pattern.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives despite five plausible sibling tools (ask, read, links, propose, remember). The agent is left to infer entirely from the verb.

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