iranti

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a search tool for discovery when exact keys are unknown, uses hybrid search, and requires calling iranti_attend first. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no results are found, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 and concise, with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying its use case, providing a prerequisite, and giving a concrete example of when to use it. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of explaining the tool's purpose, usage, and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what results look like, which would be important for an agent to interpret outputs. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally cover this, but it provides enough context for basic usage.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that 'query' should be natural language. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'Search shared memory with natural language when the exact entity or key is unknown. Uses hybrid lexical and vector search across stored facts.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('shared memory'), and method ('hybrid lexical and vector search'), distinguishing it from exact lookup tools like iranti_query.

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 guidelines: 'Use this for discovery and recall, not exact lookup' and 'If the user asks what they previously told you and you do not know the exact key, use this before saying you do not know.' It also specifies a prerequisite: 'REQUIRED: call iranti_attend before this discovery tool so Iranti can decide whether memory should be injected before search,' clearly differentiating when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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