Select Project

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

Annotations provide limited info (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds critical context: 'canonical mutation', 'no client idempotency key', 'do not retry automatically'. It also describes failure modes without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with sections, but it is lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., failure cases) could be more compact. Front-loading the main purpose is effective.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers usage context, failure modes, behavioral notes, and some parameter guidance. It does not detail return values (output schema exists) but is otherwise thorough.

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 43% (low). The description explains the externalConversation parameter and its fields in detail, compensating for part of the gap. However, it does not describe other parameters like scopeId, scopeType, or connectionId, which remain undocumented.

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 'Select an Abyss project and open an API-backed continuity session.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the 'Do not use when' section distinguishes it from narrower tools or when the project scope is unresolved.

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?

Explicit 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' sections provide clear guidance. It also lists requirements and failure handling, e.g., 'Requires: authenticated API authority' and 'On failure: login_required → login'.

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