mycelium_stats

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose safety traits like idempotency or side effects. It implies a read-only operation (stats), but does not confirm that changes are not made, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits.

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 short but includes metaphorical language that may obscure meaning. It could be more direct and concise without losing substance. Score 3 for being adequate but not optimized.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description provides enough context about what the tool shows (learned info, budget, paths), but the explanation is somewhat cryptic. It meets minimum viability but leaves room for interpretation.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information as there are none.

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 indicates it shows learned information and current state, and provides usage contexts (mid-investigation, after investigation), but lacks a specific verb and resource, making it somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings by suggesting a stats/status role, but not clearly.

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?

It describes when to use (mid-investigation for budget, after for paths) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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