dma_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never says the tool is read-only, never warns that 'delete_all' is destructive and irreversible, and never explains that 'available_*' actions enumerate valid options rather than current state. A destructive action buried in an 'Inspect' tool with zero annotation coverage is a significant undisclosed risk.

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?

A single run-on sentence in which roughly two-thirds of the text is a verbatim copy of the action enum, contributing nothing beyond structured data. The genuinely informative clause ('Inspect the DMA request/stream map') is the only part that earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description says nothing about what any of the ten actions return, what 'target' accepts, or what delete_all removes. For a ten-action dispatcher tool this leaves the agent guessing on most invocations.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not map the 'target' parameter to the specific actions that require it (the schema only says 'when needed'), which is exactly the kind of guidance that would add value here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the DMA request/stream map of the project', which is clearly distinct from the mutating sibling dma_mutate. However, the remainder of the sentence is a verbatim replay of the action enum, and the presence of 'delete_all' inside a tool framed as 'Inspect' muddies the stated purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus dma_mutate, nor on which of the ten actions to pick or in what order. The action names are self-descriptive but the description offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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