system_intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the report's content scope ('in the last hour'), but does not comment on side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. Since it's clearly a read-style report, some transparency is implicit, but it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

One tightly worded sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Danger report') and packs specifics into a compact form. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with a well-described schema, the description provides enough context: it states what data is included (security status, kills, traffic) and the time horizon. It could mention whether authentication is needed, but given the simple query nature, it is largely complete.

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 schema description for 'system_name' is thorough with examples, covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with high schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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 produces a danger report for a solar system, listing specific data (security status, kills, traffic). It distinguishes from siblings like route_danger or recent_losses by focusing on a single system's current danger. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar.

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 usage when you need danger intel for a specific system, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer when to select this over route_danger or sitrep.

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