Dream Symbols

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that filtering narrows results, that response_format changes output, and that there are no prerequisites. It also points to a full error contract, providing transparency about expected behavior.

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 repeats information about category values and filtering in both the main paragraph and the INPUT CONTRACT section, making it somewhat redundant. While the structure is clear (purpose, workflow, input, confusion avoidance), the repetition detracts from conciseness.

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 description provides sufficient context for a simple read-only list tool, including the distinction from the single-symbol tool and a link to the full output and error contract. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly stated the return format (e.g., array of symbols), but the existing details are adequate.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including default values and allowed values for response_format, and the allowed categories for category. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it does not improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 returns dream symbols with dual-tradition interpretation and mentions the scope (500 symbols, 8 categories). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool asterwise_get_dream_symbol by saying 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH...' which clarifies the specific purpose of returning a list vs a single symbol.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance via the WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. It states that this tool is standalone, and that for a specific symbol detail, one should use asterwise_get_dream_symbol. It also explains the optional category filter and the response_format parameter, giving clear usage instructions.

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