solana_forensics_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a tree of operations with descriptions, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. For a simple discovery tool, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no wasted wording or redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, discovery-oriented) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, output, and usage context. It could mention specific categories or that it is safe to call anytime, but these are minor gaps. Overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no params to explain. The description adds nothing about parameters but does not need to. It provides high-level context about the output structure, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb 'browse' and resource 'Solana forensics operations organized by category'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute and get_schema by describing an exploratory/discovery function, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to explore what operations are available before executing them', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the instruction to use it before executing implies when not to use it (when ready to execute, use execute). This is clear but lacks a direct contrast to siblings.

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