commons_query

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: empty-query scans all admitted namespaces, results are signed packets, and proposals still require evidence plus a digest-pinned constitution. Still, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, define packet structure, or mention permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no filler. The core query modes are front-loaded, followed by the empty-query behavior and then the result implications. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the most important information immediately visible.

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 single-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes, the empty-case behavior, and downstream proposal implications. It is slightly incomplete in not defining packet format or access requirements, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides only a bare 'query' string with zero property description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts exact packet IDs or a namespace prefix, and that an empty value scans every admitted namespace. This is a complete, valuable explanation of the single parameter.

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 ('Query') with two clear modes: exact packet IDs and namespace prefix scanning, plus the resource being queried. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like commons_get, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides useful context about empty-query behavior and the three admitted namespaces, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusionary guidance, relying on the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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