Neotoma

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by noting that events are 'derived from date fields in sources,' which provides context on data origin. However, it lacks details on behavior like pagination (implied by limit/offset), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps despite the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return value. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and annotations (readOnlyHint only), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and data derivation, but lacks details on parameter usage, output format, and behavioral traits like error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions filters ('type, date range, source'), which partially maps to parameters like event_type, start_date, and end_date, but it omits user_id, limit, offset, and order_by. This adds some meaning but doesn't compensate adequately for the low coverage.

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: 'Query timeline events with filters (type, date range, source).' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('timeline events'), and scope ('with filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_observations' or 'list_relationships' that might also list data, leaving room for improvement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filters but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, and with many sibling tools present (e.g., 'list_observations'), there's no indication of how this differs in context or when it's the appropriate choice.

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