explain_belief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return surface (provenance edges + a bounded page of active reviews) and that paging applies, but omits whether the call is read-only, what 'active' means, and any auth/permission expectations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is inspected, then follow-up routing, then a scope caveat. Little waste, though the final sentence is a clarification rather than new actionable content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything, and it documents the return concept reasonably well. But it leaves all three parameters undocumented despite 0% schema coverage, a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% across three parameters. The description only weakly compensates: 'the belief's' implies id is a belief, and 'bounded page' hints at limit/offset paging, but the max-of-20 limit, offset semantics, and id format go unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) plus concrete resources: the belief's incoming reasoning edges and a bounded page of active evidence-backed reviews. It clearly distinguishes itself from the bare get_belief sibling by naming what it returns and explicitly scope-limits to provenance, not causal identification.

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?

Gives clear downstream routing ('Follow experience_id with get_experience or experience_history') and a scope exclusion ('not causal identification'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. It does not, however, explicitly state when to pick this over get_belief or record_cause.

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