get_founders_passage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does state the core behavior ('expand a cited passage with up to three neighboring passages'), giving the upper bound. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no neighbors exist, or how the 'context' parameter modifies the behavior. The description is not misleading, but it lacks depth that would be valuable given zero annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary function ('expand a cited passage') and immediately states the limit ('up to three neighboring passages'). There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a simple tool with 0% schema description coverage. It fails to explain the 'context' parameter or clarify what 'neighboring passages' means (e.g., previous/next, one each side). An agent might not know how to control the number of passages returned or whether the default behavior meets the stated 'up to three' limit. This leaves critical usage details ambiguous.

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 never mentions 'context' at all, leaving its meaning (likely number of neighbors) opaque. 'passage_id' is only implied by 'cited passage' but not explicitly tied to the parameter. The description adds almost no value beyond the bare schema names, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('expand') and a clear resource ('cited passage'), and adds precise scope ('up to three neighboring passages from the same episode'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_founders (searching) and find_founders_episode (finding an episode).

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 a clear use case: when you have a cited passage and want to see its neighbors for context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent would know when to invoke it. This qualifies as clear context without explicit exclusions.

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