Aggregate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explicitly states 'safe to read without opening' and describes itself as 'mechanical,' indicating a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It also provides a key constraint (takes IDs, not handles) without needing to infer from annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: it explains the output, usage workflow, scope options, and the ID/handle distinction. It avoids redundancy and is structured logically, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 tool's purpose, output nature (counts, distributions, recent descriptions), usage workflow, and a critical parameter constraint. It does not provide an explicit example or error handling, but it is complete enough for a typical agent to use the tool correctly given the schema annotations.

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 has descriptions for only 3 of 7 parameters (43% coverage). The tool description adds minimal clarification—it mentions filterable fields and notes that who_id expects IDs—but leaves tags, what_kind, and source_type without semantic explanation. Parameter meaning is only partially clear.

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: it provides a state-of-play skeleton with counts and distributions over a scoped knowledge base. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its role as a precursor to open(), making its unique function unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool—for drafting a dossier or checking 'what do I have on X'—and when to use search (for handles) and open (for details). It also explains that scope is optional and how to filter, giving clear usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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