mind_fact_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the dominant behavioral fact: the tool is deprecated and removed in v2.0, so calls may fail. It does not describe return behavior or error semantics, but for a deprecated stub the critical trait is surfaced.

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?

Two short sentences, with the deprecation warning and replacement call front-loaded before the purpose gloss. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free deprecated stub with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: do not call this, call mind_fact(action="query") instead. Only the subject parameter's expected shape is left unaddressed.

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% and the single 'subject' parameter has no schema description. The description only restates 'a subject' without adding format, validation, or example semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 parenthetical '(Query facts about a subject)' states a specific verb+resource, and the deprecation notice names the sibling (mind_fact) that supersedes it. An agent can tell what this tool would do and that it is superseded without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly gives the when-not (DEPRECATED, removed in v2.0) and the alternative with the exact call form: mind_fact(action="query"). This is the strongest possible routing guidance, leaving nothing to inference.

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