omnarai_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (statistics, contributors, key concepts, Lattice Glyph reference) which implies a read-only informational operation, but it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or any limitations. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences: the first enumerates the return items, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned and when to use it, which is sufficient for orientation. It could theoretically specify the structure of the output, but given the tool's simplicity, the current coverage is adequate.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none. It correctly mentions 'before querying' which orients the user on when this tool is invoked with no inputs.

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 'Returns corpus statistics, contributor list, key concepts, and the Lattice Glyph reference,' which is a specific verb plus resource. It differentiates from sibling query tools by positioning this as an orientation tool, distinct from omnarai_query and others.

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 'Use this to orient before querying, or to explain the engine to a user,' giving concrete scenarios. It does not directly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before querying' phrasing implies that query tools like omnarai_query are for actual retrieval, making the guidance clear.

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