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 has a prerequisite call, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what 'Read' entails (e.g., read-only vs. side effects), leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 is incomplete. It explains the purpose and prerequisite but lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'Read' returns, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the missing structured data. However, it's adequate for a basic understanding.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'N hops deep' relates to the 'depth' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose: 'Read related entities up to N hops deep for a given entity.' This specifies the verb ('Read'), resource ('related entities'), and scope ('up to N hops deep'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iranti_related' or 'iranti_relate', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'REQUIRED: call iranti_attend before this discovery tool so Iranti can decide whether memory should be injected before graph traversal.' This clearly states a prerequisite and when to use this tool (after 'iranti_attend'), though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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