noetic.query

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it conveys that this is a read-style query, but omits side effects, permissions/auth requirements, return shape, pagination, and failure behavior. 'Query' implies non-mutating, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded; no filler or redundancy. It earns its place, though it is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable at best. It fails to explain return format, session behavior, divergence units, or what 'scope-projected' concretely means, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It relates minDivergence to the threshold ('at/above a divergence') and 'scope-projected' likely maps to sessionId, but it never names parameters or explains what sessionId is, units, or optionality.

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 names a concrete operation ('query') and a specific result set ('entities at/above a divergence, scope-projected'), so an agent can grasp the tool's basic function. It is not fully self-explanatory because 'divergence' and 'scope-projected' rely on domain knowledge, and it does not name how it differs from siblings like noetic.observe or noetic.recall.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the word 'raw' hints at a low-level geometric alternative to higher-level noetic tools, but no sibling is referenced. The agent is left to infer selection from a list of 38 vaguely named siblings.

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