cluster_results

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

The description discloses that the cluster count is data-driven, not parameter-controlled, and references the removal of misleading knobs (Issue #22). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the name. No annotations exist to supplement, so this is relatively 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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral nuance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 described. However, the absence of parameter documentation and usage context (e.g., what constitutes valid input) leaves gaps. Completeness is adequate for a simple tool but could be improved.

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 single parameter 'results' is an array of objects with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the expected structure or required fields of input objects, leaving the agent to infer from context. The description adds minimal value over 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 action ('Groups search results') and specifies the grouping criteria ('by source_type (file extension, corpus, transcript)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deduplicate_results' or 'search_corpora'.

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 the tool is for grouping by source type but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'deduplicate_results' or 'search_corpora'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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