iranti

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 discloses that this is a 'discovery tool' for graph traversal and mentions memory injection dependencies, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with a critical requirement. Both sentences earn their place, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating the prerequisite into its own line for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a discovery tool with dependencies. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool with graph traversal functionality.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'entity', 'agent', or 'agentId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read directly related entities') and resource ('entities for a given entity'), specifying the scope ('1 hop'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'iranti_related_deep' by focusing on immediate relationships only.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'REQUIRED: call iranti_attend before this discovery tool.' It provides a clear prerequisite and distinguishes it from other discovery tools by specifying its role in the workflow.

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