Read Paperclip agents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable non-obvious output behavior: results are returned as Markdown inline below a configured token threshold, otherwise only as a new immutable snapshot path. This goes beyond the annotations and schema without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core operation, the second describes the output contract, and the third constrains the optional parameter. There is no filler, repetition, or ambiguity.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, list-vs-fetch selection, and return behavior. It could add notes on error handling or how to consume the snapshot path, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity and strong annotations.

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 documents id fully as 'Agent UUID or company shortname' and says to omit it for the roster. all_fields has no schema description, and the description adds a useful decision rule: use it only when compact agent fields are insufficient. This compensates for the 50% schema coverage, though it does not enumerate exactly which fields all_fields adds.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List company agents, or fetch one agent when id is supplied.' It clearly distinguishes the two calling modes (list vs. single fetch) and matches the title, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable among siblings.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: omit id to list the company roster, supply id to fetch a single agent, and use all_fields=true only when compact fields are insufficient. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the read-only scope and parameter conditions are sufficiently clear.

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