find_nexuses_for_poem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data for analysis (read-only behavior) and outlines the expected workflow, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds useful context about the analysis process but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, returns explanation, args documentation, and example workflow. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the workflow example is somewhat lengthy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, analysis preparation purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, documents parameters, and describes what the agent should do with the results. The output schema likely covers return structure details, so the description appropriately focuses on usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'poem_id' as 'Poem identifier (ID or title)' and 'max_suggestions' as 'Maximum number of theme suggestions requested'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format details or constraints for 'poem_id'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('prepare poem and theme data for analysis') and resources ('poem content and available themes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_poem' by emphasizing the analysis preparation aspect and explicitly mentions the agent's role in analyzing themes, which sets it apart from simple data retrieval tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to prepare data for theme analysis, with an example workflow showing it's the first step before using 'link_poem_to_nexus'. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow implies it's for analysis preparation rather than direct tagging or retrieval.

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