mycelium_forage

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it fetches at forest resolution only, returns best-first results with trails, and treats ranking as a hypothesis. It also explains the meaning of empty results. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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 and well-structured, with the core function stated upfront. Every sentence adds value, and the tone is direct. It does not waste words, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the nature of the output (ranked shortlist with trail), the resolution level, and how to interpret results. No gaps are evident for this tool's complexity.

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 description carries limited additional value per parameter. The schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description adds context on how they work together but does not provide new per-parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool walks the lineage graph on a budget and returns a ranked shortlist of what to look at, distinguishing it from a lineage dump. The verb 'walk' and resource 'lineage graph' are specific, and it contrasts with sibling tools by emphasizing efficiency and hypothesis generation.

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 clear usage context: it is for finding causes or blast radius with a budget. It gives guidance on interpreting results (treat ranking as hypothesis, investigate top three) and explains empty results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though context is strong.

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