mempalace_find_tunnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'tenant-scoped' and 'passive tunnels' but does not explain what these terms mean or describe behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., what happens if neither wing_a nor wing_b is provided). It doesn't contradict annotations but adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 description is quite terse and lacks context about what 'passive tunnels' means and how the optional parameters affect the search (e.g., what happens when both are omitted). Although annotations provide safety info and an output schema exists, the description itself leaves domain-specific terminology unexplained, making it only minimally complete for complex selection decisions.

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%, with both parameters clearly described as 'Optional first wing...' and 'Optional second wing...'. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 function: finding tenant-scoped cross-wing shared rooms that behave like passive tunnels. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('cross-wing shared rooms'), and it distinguishes from siblings like list_tunnels and follow_tunnels by focusing on a particular subset of rooms rather than listing or following all tunnels.

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 such as mempalace_list_tunnels or mempalace_follow_tunnels. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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