prospector

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format and sorting (highest pain first) but omits behavioral traits like read-only status, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words, though could benefit from structured parameter notes.

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 4 parameters and a sibling set, the description covers purpose and output format adequately but lacks parameter explanations and output schema details. An output schema exists but isn't used in the description.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions profile and min_pain filters by reference to reddit_query, without explaining their semantics or syntax. Limits and format are left implicit.

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 exports stored items as json/csv/md and applies filters like reddit_query. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on export rather than live querying.

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 mentions usefulness for handing data to users and applies same filters as reddit_query, but doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches live data, stores comments for later evidence, and includes the post object only if already stored. However, it lacks details on side effects like overwriting behavior, rate limits, or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 well-structured, starting with the main action, then parameter detail, return format, and an important note about post inclusion. It is concise enough without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanation could be moved to the schema.

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 covers the main function, parameter info for post_id, return format, and the side effect of storing comments. However, it does not explain error handling, interaction with stored data (e.g., overwrite vs append), or authentication, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations or enriched schema.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for post_id by specifying allowed formats (bare id or fullname) with examples. However, min_score and max_comments are not explained beyond their defaults, leaving their semantics unclear. Thus partial added value.

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 that the tool fetches a post's comment tree live and stores the comments, which identifies a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly compare to siblings, the function is distinct from other reddit tools like reddit_search or reddit_export, so purpose is clear.

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 implies usage for fetching comments from a specific post, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reddit_search for broader retrieval or reddit_sweep for stored data). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

Discloses important behavioral details: returns one dict per known id in order requested, includes permalink and trimmed quote, skips unknown ids. This conveys read-only behavior even without annotations, though no explicit safety or rate-limit info.

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 sentences: first for action, second for return structure, third for usage guidance. No unnecessary words, nicely front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Adequately covers the tool's behavior and return format, especially given the presence of an output schema for structural details. Lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites but is sufficient for a retrieval tool.

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%, but the description only says 'for the given ids' without explaining the format, origin, or constraints of the ids. Adds minimal value beyond the schema's type definition.

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?

Clearly states it resolves stored items into evidence. Specifies return type (EvidenceItem), content (permalink, verbatim quote), and that it helps ground claims. However, 'stored items' is vague without context of other tools, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 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?

Explicitly advises using the tool to ground claims with real Reddit links instead of paraphrasing, providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Return') and lists returned fields, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is mostly inferred, not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately enumerate the returned fields. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the key aspects: it specifies the return type (dict) and lists the main fields. It is nearly complete, though it could note that the output schema provides further structure.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'name'. The description does not specify what 'name' refers to (e.g., Reddit username, profile ID). It only says 'one profile', which is insufficient to guide the agent on valid input values.

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 a profile's full configuration as a dict, specifying the exact resources it retrieves (subreddits, search_terms, etc.). This verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit_profiles (listing profiles) and reddit_get_evidence (specific evidence).

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 implies usage when needing the full configuration of a specific profile, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like reddit_profiles for listing or reddit_get_evidence for partial data. No when-not conditions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates this is a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits. The explanation of what a profile defines adds context, but behavioral specifics are minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide actionable usage guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (no parameters, simple listing) and that an output schema is available, the description covers everything needed: purpose, example, and usage context. It is fully adequate for this tool's scope.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that profiles are available by name and giving an example, which clarifies the output. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'available topic profiles', including an example name. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'reddit_profile_get', the context of listing all profiles vs. getting a specific one is implied.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to discover what can be swept or queried', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings like reddit_sweep and reddit_query. It does not mention exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Describes return format ('hydrated item dicts including matched lexicon patterns') and behavior (querying stored items). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers read-only behavior and data retrieval.

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?

Highly concise: one sentence for purpose, one for filters/sort, one for return type. Uses backticks for parameters, making it scannable. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers input parameters and return type adequately. Output schema exists to detail return values. Lacks error handling or performance notes, but reasonable for a query tool given sibling context.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description explains each parameter (profile, subreddit, min_pain, contains, sort) with specific meanings and allowed values. Only limit lacks description, but default of 50 is implied.

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?

Clearly states it queries already-stored items with no network involvement, lists specific filters and sort options. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reddit_fetch_thread and reddit_search that involve network calls.

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?

Explicitly notes 'no network' to indicate local queries. Lists available filters and sort parameters, guiding usage. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives or when not to use, but context from siblings helps.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that posts are stored and returns a dictionary with specified fields. However, it does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or any side effects beyond storage. Given the read-like nature, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides additional details on behavior. While it could be slightly more streamlined, it contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 (5 params, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior, return value structure, and relationship to sibling tools. It explains storage and linking, and lists the return fields. No major gaps are apparent for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 explain all parameters. It only explains 'query' and 'subreddits', but fails to describe 'sort', 'time', and 'limit' which are present in the schema with defaults but no textual explanation. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to correctly use these parameters.

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 'Search Reddit live for a query and store the matching posts', indicating a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining that results are stored for later use with other tools like reddit_query, and details the subreddit restriction behavior.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (live search and store), and mentions alternatives for drilling into stored posts (reddit_query, reddit_get_evidence, reddit_fetch_thread). It also clarifies the search scope: restricted if subreddits given, site-wide otherwise.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It describes the return values in detail, indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks mention of performance or rate limits, which would be beneficial for an agent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a list of outputs. Efficient and well-structured.

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 stats retrieval tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail on what is returned and the scope. Missing minor details like authentication or profile existence checks, but acceptable.

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 covers 0% of parameter meaning. The description adds value by stating the profile parameter optionally scopes the stats, but does not explain its format or behavior beyond that.

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 summary stats for the store, optionally scoped to a profile. It lists specific outputs (totals, split, breakdown, patterns, date range), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on querying or exporting data.

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 mentions optional scoping to a profile, implying when to use the parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like reddit_query or reddit_search.

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

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

Discloses that the tool makes live Reddit calls and may take a while, and explains the two stages. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it provides good behavioral context beyond the tool name, though does not detail auth or error handling.

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?

Two efficient paragraphs: first explains the process stages, second covers parameter overrides and return type. Front-loads purpose, no unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 (multi-stage, four parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers the process, parameter overrides, and return summary. Mentions potential slowness, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all four parameters: explains time values (hour|day|week|month|year|all), limit as posts per sub, max_threads as override, and profile is self-explanatory. Compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'two-stage sweep' for a profile with specific actions: pulling/scoring posts and deep-fetching comments. Uses specific verbs like Run, pulls, scores, deep-fetches. Differentiates from sibling tools by describing a comprehensive sweep.

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?

Implies usage for comprehensive profile analysis, noting live Reddit calls and potential slowness. Does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like reddit_search or reddit_fetch_thread, leaving the agent to infer based on the sweep description.

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