Surf Project

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the command-dispatch structure, listing subcommands, and flagging 'pulse' as deprecated. It does not cover pagination behavior or auth requirements, but adds meaningful value beyond 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 front-loaded with purpose and then provides a structured command reference. Each command is limited to one line with its parameters, and the deprecated command is clearly marked. It is longer than minimal but appropriately sized for a multi-command dispatcher.

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 complexity (command enum, free-form params, no output schema), the description provides enough command-specific detail, including parameter hints and deprecation, to be usable. It stops short of explaining return values or parameter semantics, but is reasonably complete for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 only defines a generic 'params' object, giving 0% coverage. The description compensates by listing parameters for each command, including types and enums (e.g., metric, lang). However, it does not explain the meaning of ambiguous parameters like 'q' or 'fields'.

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 this tool is for retrieving project data from Surf, covering aggregated profiles, funding, tokenomics, and DeFi metrics. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on 'project data' and 'DeFi protocol metrics', but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 opens with 'Use this when the user needs project data from Surf' and then enumerates commands for different project-related queries. It gives clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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