get_sweep_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the records are pre-computed and stored on the run (not fetched live at call time) and that filtering already happened in code, which tells the agent why the results are compact/limited. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or freshness beyond that, so not a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences explain the domain model and the call pattern without obvious filler. Slightly dense for a five-parameter read tool, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 explained, and the description covers what the index contains and how paging works. It leaves minor gaps around pagination boundaries and what happens when a section name is invalid, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics to the optional `section` parameter by explaining that omitting it returns the index (window, overall status, per-section counts and errors) and that sections are then paged individually. That index/section interaction is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 ("Read the pre-gathered sweep for a run") and then defines what a sweep actually is — reports gathered by Metsuke before the gatherer is called, with fixed source calls, reply-state checks and noise filters run in code. That domain framing lets an agent distinguish this clearly from siblings like get_output_tool or list_reports_tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: "Call with no section for the index... then page through each section you need." The two-step discovery-then-paginate pattern is clear and actionable. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it is not a full 5.

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