mesh_find_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full multiset, that it is signer-deduped, that it always uses the DHT's own all-zero realm, and that host defaults to a specific station. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination, size limits, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantial.

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 sentences with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded ('Fetch EVERY record stored at a DHT key'), followed by the dedup detail, the realm note, and the host default. 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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the key semantics, the dedup behavior, the realm, and the host default. The only gap is the lack of any description of the return format, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the result looks like would have made it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context for key_hex by explaining it is NOT the same as a record's own advertiser/signer key and giving examples of where such a key comes from. This is useful but not extensive; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('EVERY record stored at a DHT key'), and clarifies the scope ('full signer-deduped multiset'). It also gives a concrete example ('every procedure_advertisement one procedure has from different providers'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh_find_record and mesh_find_records_by_type.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the complete multiset at a key, not just a single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the example and the emphasis on 'EVERY record' and 'full signer-deduped multiset' provide clear context for selecting it over mesh_find_record or mesh_find_records_by_type.

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