Neotoma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns 'recommendations with confidence scores' but lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or side effects. For an analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps in understanding how the tool operates and what to expect.

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 sentences that efficiently convey the core function and return value. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input and output details). The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error cases, performance considerations, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'register_schema'. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'raw_fragments' or provide examples). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 analyzes 'raw_fragments' to identify fields for promotion to schema fields, with specific mention of confidence scores based on frequency and type consistency. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_schema_recommendations' by focusing on analysis rather than retrieval, though not explicitly contrasted. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_schema_recommendations' or 'register_schema'. The description implies usage for analyzing raw data to generate field recommendations, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. Minimal usage context is provided beyond the basic function.

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