astra_hybrid_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation reads or writes, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or any side effects. The phrase 'Combine semantic matches with structural expansion' is too abstract to convey behavioral implications.

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 under-specified fragment rather than a properly sized explanation. It is not well-structured and does not front-load any practical information. While brief, the brevity sacrifices clarity, making it inadequate for an agent selecting the tool.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a two-line description, the tool is critically incomplete. The agent lacks information on what the tool returns, how to construct the path/query, what limit and expansion control, and any usage constraints. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema describes four parameters (path, query, limit, expansion) with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, acceptable values, or how they interact, forcing the agent to guess from names alone. This is a severe gap.

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 gives a general sense of the tool's role ('Combine semantic matches with structural expansion') but does not state a concrete verb+resource outcome or differentiate from siblings like astra_semantic_search and astra_get_callers. It implies a hybrid behavior but is ambiguous about what it actually produces.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus relying on astra_semantic_search alone or astra_get_callers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between siblings. The description merely states the concept without any conditions for use.

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