chimera_dedup_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the cache is 'Populated automatically by the PostToolUse hook,' implying side effects from other tools. However, it does not elaborate on the consequences of the 'clear' action (e.g., affecting dedup behavior) or any rate limits, persistence, or reversibility. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering all essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by action-specific guidance and a note on population. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core functionality and action semantics, but does not describe expected output (e.g., format of 'list' results) or the full impact of 'clear' on subsequent dedup behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the return values.

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 description coverage is 50% (2 of 4 params have descriptions in the schema). The description adds context: it explains the 'action' enum values and states that 'key' is a 16-char hex required for action=get. It does not add detail for 'tool_name' or 'namespace', leaving half the parameters with only schema-level info. The description partially compensates but still lacks full coverage.

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's purpose: 'Inspect or query the per-namespace tool-call dedup cache.' It specifies three distinct actions (get, list, clear) with their purposes, making the tool's functionality unambiguous. This is further supported by listing the actions with their usage in the same sentence, distinguishing the tool from siblings.

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 explicit guidance for each action: use 'get' with a key to retrieve metadata, 'list' to see all tracked calls, 'clear' to reset. It clearly indicates when each action is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention any alternatives, though the sibling list does not contain a close alternative. A small gap in exclusions prevents a 5.

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