mycelium_reinforce

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it makes next investigation cheaper, warns that dishonesty teaches wrong paths and sends agents for weeks, and states empty is better than padded. This is thorough and transparent about consequences.

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, each earning its place: first states the action, second explains significance, third provides a critical rule. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action, and uses plain language effectively.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well, it omits what the tool returns or any side effects beyond cost. However, an output schema exists (though not shown) which likely explains return values, so the burden is partially shifted. For a tool with one parameter, this is adequate but could mention expected outcome.

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% with a single required parameter 'urns' described as 'Only the URNs your conclusion genuinely rests on.' The description adds significant meaning: 'the trails that reached these entities' and the ethical context of honesty, reinforcing the schema's guidance and explaining the parameter's purpose and consequence.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Lay pheromone on the trails that reached these entities.' It clearly defines the tool's purpose as reinforcing paths to make future investigations cheaper, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mycelium_ask or mycelium_forage which involve querying or searching.

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 guidance: this tool is for reinforcing trails after a conclusion to reduce future investigation cost. It warns against reinforcing based on mere looks and recommends empty over dishonest input. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of siblings and the action of 'reinforcing' imply when to use this versus others.

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