wavefunction__describe_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool returns data without indicating side effects, safety, or idempotency. For a query-like tool, missing 'read-only' or 'no side effects' is a 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 very brief (one phrase) and includes domain prefix. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. However, it could be structured as a full sentence for better readability.

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 tool has low complexity: no parameters, no output schema. The description adequately states return content, but lacks detail on the structure of 'capabilities and input contract'. For a discovery tool, more context on what those terms mean would improve completeness.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description adds no parameter detail, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. It could clarify what 'input contract' means, but not required for parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states it returns 'capabilities and input contract' for a demand-side agent/collective. The prefix 'wavefunction' and the phrase 'demand-side agent/collective discovery' distinguish it from sibling describe_agent tools in other domains (e.g., arbitration, identity).

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 wavefunction domain, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other describe_agent tools or alternatives. Sibling list shows many similar tools, yet no criteria for selection are provided.

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