timeline_motif_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the output components (definitions, families, frequencies, edges) and use case (graph rendering, filtering). No contradictions.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key outputs. Every phrase earns its place, 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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output structure and use case. However, it omits behavior when no parameters are provided (returns all?) and does not explain the `family` parameter values.

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 50%. The description mentions 'families' but does not explain the `motif` or `family` parameters beyond the schema. With only two optional params, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'motif constellation' with definitions, families, frequencies, and co-occurrence edges. It specifies it is for graph rendering or motif-based filtering, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like timeline_events or timeline_stats.

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 motif analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timeline_events or timeline_story_threads. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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