Decode Dream Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, the POST endpoint, and the fact that results are tagged recurring vs single-event. It stops short of describing behavior on zero matches or the 2000-character input cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result in one sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata. The metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) are dense but each carries usable information, so there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. What is missing for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage is the meaning of the recurring flag, any note on empty results, and disambiguation from the several other dreams_* tools.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. 'text' is only echoed in the [Required: text] tag, and the 'recurring' boolean is never explained — the phrase 'recurring or single-event' characterizes the output, not what setting recurring=true changes. The 3–2000 character bounds are undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan dream narrative text for known symbols') plus the shape of the response ('matched symbols with their meanings'). It is clear what the tool does, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as astroway_esoteric_dreams_symbol_keyword or astroway_esoteric_dreams_recurring_themes, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only routing signal is implicit in the phrase 'dream narrative text', leaving the agent to infer this is for whole-dream input rather than single-symbol lookup or recurring-theme analysis.

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