miro_get_desire_paths

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral context about the nature of corrections (URLs in ID fields, camelCase keys, etc.) and what is returned (top patterns and recent events), going beyond 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?

Two sentences plus an imperative usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or vague language.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well documented, the description explains the concept sufficiently. It could mention pagination or format, but with output schema, it's not strictly necessary. Complete for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description mentions filtering by tool or rule, aligning with parameters, but does not add new meaning beyond implying their use. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it queries 'desire path normalizations' and shows auto-corrections of tool inputs. It uses specific verbs and resources ('query', 'normalizations', 'auto-corrected'), and distinguishes it from CRUD siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE WHEN reviewing tool usage patterns to improve descriptions or schemas,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling tools list provides implicit contrast.

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