chimera_claims

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

Without annotations, the description partially fills the gap by mentioning output features (typing, tagging, provenance), but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or state modification. It provides moderate transparency.

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 a single 15-word sentence, efficiently front-loading the core action and key features. It is concise but could be slightly improved with structural breaks for readability.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover expected output format, parameter dependencies (text vs envelope), or error conditions. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 75% (3/4 params have descriptions). The description adds value by grouping 'text or an envelope' as primary inputs but does not detail envelope type, max_claims significance beyond 'maximum', or namespace usage. It adds moderate context beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Extract' and the clear resource 'atomic claims', and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'chimera_detect' or 'chimera_causal' by focusing on claim extraction with typing, tagging, and metadata.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., chimera_detect). It does not explain prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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