Mushi — where to start

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses that it 'does not call any downstream tools itself' and that it avoids loading the full catalog into context. These are significant behavioral traits that aren't captured by the annotations, giving the agent a clear picture of side-effects and resource usage.

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 concise, front-loaded with the most important call-to-action, and structured with numbered return items. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes to orientation, usage, or behavioral transparency.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing exactly what the agent will receive (three items listed) and why the tool is useful (avoids loading full catalog). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's output or when to choose 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?

The schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage, including guidance to leave blank for general orientation). The description adds value by providing concrete examples of intent phrases ('fix the top bug', 'run QA tests') and emphasizing brevity ('short natural-language phrase'), which clarifies semantics 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to be called first when new or unsure, returning a curated list of relevant tools, orientation, and a recommended first tool. It uses an explicit directive ('CALL THIS FIRST') and enumerates the three distinct outputs, making it unmistakably different from the sibling tools that perform specific operations.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'if you are new to this Mushi project or unsure which tool to use.' It also explains the benefit ('avoids loading the full 68-tool catalog into context'), which helps the agent recognize when this tool is preferable over directly browsing or guessing.

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