enhanced_branch_survey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Uses AI-powered semantic understanding by default' but does not address whether the operation is read-only, whether any state is modified, permission requirements, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key capabilities. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the phrase 'for Knowledge Archaeology' adds domain context without being directly functional.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavioral context. It provides a high-level overview but omits what the output looks like, how parameters interact, and any edge cases or prerequisites. This is incomplete for a tool of this 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds context like 'semantic search' and 'completeness scoring' which map to parameters like semanticAnalysis and minCompletenessScore, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'branch survey system' with specific functions: semantic search across all branches, completeness scoring, relationship mapping, and production readiness assessment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comprehensive_knowledge_search or search_branch_notes, which focus on search rather than a holistic survey with scoring.

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 implies use when a comprehensive, semantic analysis of branches is needed, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives like comprehensive_knowledge_search or timeline_reconstruction. It lacks clear 'when to use / when not to use' instructions.

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