slipbox_get_cluster_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching (uses cached analysis by default, refresh=true to regenerate), cron behavior, and scoring factors. This is strong, but it omits potential performance implications of refresh or any side effects, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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-organized: a clear one-line purpose, a brief explanation of clusters, a bulleted list of scoring factors, and a concise Args block. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes scanning easy.

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 description gives strong context (what clusters are, how scoring works, defaults, refresh semantics) and implies return structure via parameters like limit and include_notes. However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully describe the returned cluster objects, leaving some ambiguity about the exact fields returned.

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 fully compensates by defining each parameter with type, default, and purpose (min_score, limit, include_notes, refresh). This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and goes beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get pending cluster analysis for structure note creation.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like slipbox_create_structure_from_cluster (which creates) and slipbox_refresh_clusters (which refreshes) by focusing on retrieval of pending analysis.

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?

It explains the intended use case: high-scoring clusters are good candidates for new structure notes. It also provides context on cached vs refresh behavior and cron automation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when *not* to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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