researcher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral context about providing 'evidence and honest unverified flags', which is valuable but not detailed (e.g., what flags, how evidence is presented). The description does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and specific use cases. No redundant information; every phrase adds value. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only covers the general purpose but does not explain how to structure the prompt, use optional parameters, or interpret results. An agent would lack sufficient context to effectively invoke the tool beyond a basic prompt.

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 input schema has 6 parameters (prompt, expert, developerInstructions, cwd, reasoningEffort, files) with no descriptions in the schema and 0% coverage. The description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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: researching external libraries, frameworks, APIs, and open-source code. It provides specific use cases ('how do I use X', best-practice, dependency behavior) and mentions output characteristics (evidence, unverified flags), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that handle other domains.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for questions about external libraries, best practices, and dependency behavior. It implies not to use it for internal code or non-research tasks, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives. The guidance is clear and actionable, but could be improved by mentioning when not to use it.

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