verdigraph__describe_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('return'), which is adequate, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it requires authentication. For a simple query tool with no parameters, this is minimally acceptable.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the context ('verdigraph — verifiable cognition...') before stating the core action. The first sentence in brackets provides useful branding but could be shortened. Overall, it is concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It explains it returns capabilities and input contract. No further detail is strictly necessary, though mentioning the agent name more explicitly could help.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 states 'Return capabilities and input contract', clearly indicating the tool's function as a descriptive introspection endpoint. It specifies the resource (verdigraph agent) and action (return), but does not differentiate from numerous other describe_agent siblings, missing a chance to clarify what makes this agent's capabilities distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other describe_agent tools (e.g., neurogenesis__describe_agent, notary__describe_agent). The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate agent descriptor, which is critical given the large sibling group.

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