who_was_there

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three behavioral modes based on parameters and the dependency on the people bridge. However, it does not describe the return format, error conditions, or what happens if both parameters are passed, which are meaningful gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, and each sentence provides distinct information. It is compact and free of fluff.

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 tool is simple with 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the parameter-driven behavior and a prerequisite, making it reasonably complete for this complexity. However, the lack of output format or error handling prevents a higher score.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of each parameter combination: 'person' for trips, 'trip' for people, neither for all pairings. It also notes that person can be a partial name and trip is a slug, which aligns with the schema.

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 explains that this tool links trips and a people graph bidirectionally, with examples for each parameter combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the people graph rather than just location/trip data. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'list' or 'get', making the action slightly implicit.

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?

Usage is implied through the parameter examples: pass 'person' for trips shared, 'trip' for people tagged, neither for all pairings. It also notes a prerequisite (the optional people bridge). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions.

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