noetic.focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The phrase 'drill into' suggests a read or retrieval operation, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (format, structure), or any side effects. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or state changes. This is the only source of behavioral info and it is inadequate.

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, non-redundant sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and object. While it is terse, it doesn't waste words, so it earns a high score for conciseness, even though it sacrifices detail.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description only hints at the purpose of focusRef. It omits what the output looks like, any prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a focusRef), the role of sessionId, and any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity and no supporting metadata, the description is clearly incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that focusRef is a reference from a summary, which adds some meaning, but sessionId is entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for both parameters, leaving an agent uncertain about the purpose and format of sessionId.

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 states a clear action ('drill into') and a specific resource ('a summary's focusRef') with an expected outcome ('full per-entity detail'). It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the tool should be used when you have a summary's focusRef, but there is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or why noetic.focus should be chosen over related tools like noetic.recall or noetic.query. This is a minimal clue, not real guidance.

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