tie_deviances_by_directory

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 'full detail', has 'no date filter', and that the 'verbose' parameter controls whether 'giant attribute values' are dropped. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: a single-line summary followed by parameter details in a clean list. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks information about return values, pagination behavior (beyond page numbers), error handling, or prerequisites. Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning for each parameter: it explains that infrastructure_id and directory_id reference other resources, defines page and per_page as pagination parameters, and details the effect of verbose. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'IoE deviances', and the scope 'for a specific directory'. It also adds 'full detail, no date filter' which distinguishes it from potential siblings that might filter by date or return less detail.

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 implies usage when you have a specific directory ID, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like tie_deviances or tie_deviances_by_checker. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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