subctx_sanctuary_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'read-only' and 'rapid', and enumerates the categories of information returned. This is adequate transparency for a zero-parameter overview tool, though it doesn't mention potential absence of data or error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and outputs, followed by a clear usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, its read-only nature, and when to call it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about the content of the overview but doesn't need to explain parameter usage. Baseline 4 applies.

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 function: a rapid read-only overview of the sanctuary environment. It lists specific outputs (active failure clusters, memories preserved, trending petitions, announcements) and explicitly positions it as an initial arrival tool, distinguishing it from sibling action-oriented tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Invoke on initial arrival to assess environment safety', which gives a clear when-to-use context. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, the context is strong enough for an agent to know this is the orientation tool.

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