how_do_i

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a deduplicated, ordered, cited set of passages within a token budget, and explains its efficiency advantage over a raw top-k dump. It does not discuss side effects, but for a retrieval-style tool this is sufficiently transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then comparative advantage, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (assembled context block of cited passages) and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the token_budget parameter, but overall it provides a strong context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'task' parameter (natural language, mention framework), but 'token_budget' is only implied via 'within a token budget' and is never explicitly named or described. This leaves some ambiguity about the parameter's meaning and impact.

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 it answers 'how do I X with PostHog?' tasks with an assembled context block. The verb 'Answer' and the specific resource (the task) are clear, and it explicitly distinguishes from search_posthog_docs by recommending this tool over search for implementation questions.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over search for any implementation question', which is a clear alternative. It also tells the agent to pass the task in natural language and mention the framework (e.g., 'in React') so the right variant is selected, providing actionable usage instructions.

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