narrative_pulse

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

Annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints. The description adds the deprecation status, which is a key behavioral trait. It could be improved by noting potential removal or lack of support, but it's sufficient.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates deprecation and the replacement. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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 that the tool is deprecated, the description adequately tells an agent to avoid it and use the alternative. It does not explain original behavior, but that is unnecessary for a deprecated tool. The presence of output schema is irrelevant here.

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 input schema has one parameter 'symbol' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'symbol' means or provide any additional semantic context. The alternative usage mentions 'symbol', but no detail is given.

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 is deprecated and directs to the replacement 'narrative(mode="pulse", symbol=...)'. While it doesn't explicitly state the tool's original purpose, the name and replacement hint at it, making it clear for an agent that this tool should not be used.

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 explicitly says the tool is deprecated and provides the exact alternative invocation. This is perfect guidance for when to use this tool (never) and what to use instead.

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