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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the default server and selector examples. It does not describe return format, error handling, or any network-related behavior, leaving significant gaps for a network tool.

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 at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence about the server's historical status is extra context but not wasteful, keeping the overall structure tight.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no required fields, the description provides enough context to get started: what it does, default server, and example selectors. It lacks details on edge cases or output specifics, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning, repeating selector examples already in the schema, though it does provide context about the default server.

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 opens a Gopher menu and lists its items, with specific examples of selectors. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_textfile or search_veronica, but the resource (menu/directory) is clear.

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 by the description: to browse a Gopher menu, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over read_textfile or search_veronica, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the gopher type (0) and that it reads plain text, but does not disclose truncation behavior due to maxChars, error handling, or response structure. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a file retrieval tool.

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 two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core function, the second provides use cases. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify behaviors like maxChars truncation or response format. It covers purpose and usage but leaves operational details unaddressed, making it minimally adequate.

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 only 33% (only selector has a description). The tool description does not explain host or maxChars semantics, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from defaults alone. It also fails to elaborate on how to construct a valid selector beyond the schema example.

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 'Read a plain-text file from gopherspace (gopher type 0)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like open_menu and search_veronica by narrowing the scope to text files.

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 clear context by mentioning use for 'floodgap texts, old FAQ collections, and historical documents', which implies the tool is appropriate for reading textual gopher content. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the context and sibling names indirectly clarify alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (search and menu return) and gives an example host/selector, but it does not mention error handling, network side effects, read-only nature, or any potential pitfalls. This is a moderate level of transparency for a search tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and gives a concrete example. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information, making it appropriately concise.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential idea but lacks important details. It does not explain the output format beyond 'menu', does not explicitly mention that query is required, and ignores port and the selector discrepancy. It is adequate for a simple tool but has 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?

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (query and selector have descriptions, host and port do not). The description adds an example host and selector, which partially compensates, but the example selector '/7/v2/vs' conflicts with the schema default '/v2/vs', creating confusion. Port is not addressed at all, and the description does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 performs a Gopher search (type 7), provides a concrete example of a Veronica-2 search on gopher.floodgap.com, and indicates the return format as a menu. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_menu and read_textfile, which handle different Gopher operations.

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 implies usage for running a Gopher search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_menu or read_textfile. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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