Sense & Observe

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the description adds limited behavioral detail. It confirms the tool is for observation but does not clarify behavior per mode or the discrepancy between listed and enum modes.

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?

Relatively concise with two sentences and a mode list, but the first sentence is ambiguous about the mapping between actions and modes. The structure is adequate but could be more organized.

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?

Deficient given 8 parameters and diverse modes; no parameter explanations, no return value details despite output schema existing. The description does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly across all modes.

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 should compensate but only lists modes with minor inconsistency. It does not explain the query, url, layers, or other parameters, leaving the agent with only schema names.

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 it is for gathering real-world data by searching, ingesting URLs, checking vitals, or mapping repositories. It lists modes, but there is a mismatch between described 'repo_map' and schema's 'hybrid_discovery', which slightly reduces clarity. No explicit differentiation from sibling 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?

Provides a general usage context ('gathering real-world data, grounding queries in reality') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. The sibling list has many tools, yet no guidance on selecting this one.

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