research_semantic_setup_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool prepares but does not execute, which is useful, but omits details on side effects, resource creation, permissions, or what 'preparing' entails (e.g., validation, caching). The agent is left guessing the actual impact.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is too sparse for a tool with 6 parameters and an output schema. It could be restructured to briefly explain parameters or usage context without losing conciseness.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description does not connect it to sibling tools like research_commit_ingest or explain the output schema's role. The agent lacks understanding of how this tool fits into the broader research workflow.

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%, yet the tool description does not mention any of the 6 parameters (model_id, device, revision, etc.). The agent has no insight into what each parameter does or their relationships, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 verb 'prepare' and the resource 'hash-bound local semantic setup plan', with the important constraint 'never execute'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like research_commit_ingest that may execute. However, terms like 'hash-bound' and 'local' are not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 only implicitly advises against execution ('never execute') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as research_prepare_ingest or governance_prepare_codex_dispatch. No context about prerequisites or workflow positioning is given.

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