get_caveats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as non-mutating information retrieval ('Returns...') and specifies the content categories returned. It does not describe error behavior for unknown primitives, but for a one-parameter read-only lookup this is a minor 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and output categories, with no filler or repetition of schema information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the return content adequately. It lacks explicit alternatives or edge-case behavior, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly with the provided information.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter with an example ('e.g. Dialog, Select'), and the description adds no further detail about expected values or constraints beyond the word 'Radix'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('known issues, workarounds, and version-specific behavior for a Radix primitive'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_primitives or get_primitive. An agent can tell immediately what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 the tool should be used when caveats or version quirks are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_primitive or get_composition_pattern. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing.

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