firepass_researcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: autonomous iteration, read-only file access, specific search tools, and the underlying model. While it could mention timeouts or error handling, the disclosed traits are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose and key constraints, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers input parameters and behavioral constraints. It could mention determinism or caching, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Complexity is moderate, and the description meets the need.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all 4 parameters with meaningful explanations (prompt as research question, cwd as sandbox directory, context as optional pre-loaded files, max_iterations as tool-call rounds with default). This compensates well for the lack of 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 clearly states it runs a research task using the FirePass researcher (Kimi K2.6 Turbo) with a read-only tool loop. It specifies capabilities (read files, search with ripgrep/ast-grep/jq/glob, iterate autonomously) and constraints (no file writes or shell commands), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like firepass_reviewer or firepass_worker.

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 usage for research/analysis tasks by stating its read-only nature and explicit exclusions ('No file writes or shell commands'). It does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives, but the constraints provide clear guidance. Sibling tool names further hint at different purposes.

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