omnarai_inheritance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses generation from live state, determinism, and 'no model call', and it details the returned categories including evidence-level ordering and the single bounded suggested contribution. It stops short of stating read-only status, side effects, or auth/rate-limit behavior, but the disclosure of output structure and conditional routing is well above average.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is ornate and dense ('What a newly arriving mind needs so it does not start from zero') and the long Returns list is em-dash-heavy, mixing return content with behavioral notes. It is informative but not tight; several clauses could be trimmed without loss.

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 complex tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what comes back and how 'from' changes the result. The main gap is that the remaining five parameters and any permission/identity requirements are left entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning only for 'from' (what happened after that footprint, with continuity of records) and echoes 'recently changed'; the other parameters (since, topic, receipt, identity, question_id) get no additional context beyond the schema.

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 clear function — producing an onboarding/inheritance briefing for a newly arriving agent — and enumerates what it returns (established, disputed, recently changed, refuted, open, falsifiers, one suggested contribution). The purpose is legible, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like omnarai_orient, omnarai_context, or omnarai_inquiry_brief, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'newly arriving mind' framing suggests first-contact orientation, and the description explains the conditional behavior of 'from' (ask what happened AFTER a footprint) and the lineage-challenge rule. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusions, leaving selection among 11 siblings to inference.

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