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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions this is a 'discovery tool' for 'provenance discovery,' implying it's a read-only operation to retrieve information about agents and facts. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage prerequisites well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and does not explain return values. For a discovery tool with no structured output information, more context would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable level.

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 ('entity', 'agent', 'agentId') with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'entity' format in more detail or clarifying the relationship between 'agent' and 'agentId'. Baseline is 3 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 tool's purpose: 'List which agents have written facts about an entity.' This is a specific verb ('List') + resource ('agents') + scope ('have written facts about an entity'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iranti_history' or 'iranti_query', which might also involve listing or querying information.

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: 'REQUIRED: call iranti_attend before this discovery tool so Iranti can decide whether memory should be injected before provenance discovery.' This specifies a prerequisite (call 'iranti_attend' first) and context for when to use this tool, with a clear alternative or preparatory step named.

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