Locate an entity's exact position within a metric-version-bound context. Resolves where a specified entity sits in the Priostack agent memory network.
Where an in-scope entity sits, metric-version-bound.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Where an in-scope entity sits' weakly implies a read-only lookup operation, but side effects, permission requirements, and state changes are never addressed. It doesn't contradict read-only behavior, but it doesn't confirm it either — the tool could plausibly trigger traversal side effects. Like the update_drive calibration case, this is an implied-only behavioral profile.
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 sentence, so it is brief, but that brevity is achieved through cryptic phrasing ('metric-version-bound') rather than structured clarity. The core action is buried in a passive construction, and no key information is front-loaded. The 'metric-version-bound' suffix reads as an unexplained qualifier rather than a useful constraint, making the sentence compact but not concise in the communicative sense.
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?
This is a minimal-definition tool: 2 undocumented string params, no output schema, no annotations, no examples, and a 39-tool sibling list demanding differentiation. The description carries the full explanatory burden and delivers a cryptic riddle instead. An agent cannot learn what 'in-scope entity' means, what the tool returns, whether it mutates state, or how it differs from noetic.query, noetic.observe, noetic.fetch, or noetic.orient. Completely inadequate for the context.
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 exposes 2 parameters (entity: string, sessionId: string) with zero description coverage. The description's phrase 'in-scope entity' loosely maps to the 'entity' parameter, giving a weak hint that it is the lookup subject. However, 'sessionId' is entirely unexplained, and 'metric-version-bound' gives no clue about valid parameter values, formats, or how the two parameters interact. With schema coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but barely does.
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 'Where an in-scope entity sits, metric-version-bound' uses a location-finding phrase ('where... sits') that loosely matches the 'locate' verb and names a resource ('in-scope entity'), which weakly distinguishes it from siblings like noetic.query or noetic.observe. However, 'metric-version-bound' is unexplained jargon, the passive construction obscures the action, and it fails to state what input is expected or what output is produced. This is marginally better than a tautology but far from a clear verb+resource statement.
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 usage context exists anywhere in the definition. The description never states when to prefer noetic.locate over its 39 siblings, mentions no preconditions (e.g., a session established via noetic.connect), and gives no when-not-to-use guidance. The schema offers no help either: both parameters are optional and lack descriptions. An agent has zero signal for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.