core

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists method signatures but does not disclose important behaviors such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., selfRename is mutable), rate limits, or error handling. The description is primarily a parameter listing, lacking behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the rest is dense and includes a long parenthetical with formatting characters. It could be more concise and better structured (e.g., using bullet points) to improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (multiple methods, nested params) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It relies on a runtime 'list' method for full details, does not describe return values or error conditions, and omits some methods entirely.

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 description significantly enriches the input schema by explaining that 'method' is a camelCase verb, listing all valid methods with their parameter signatures (e.g., memberList(kind?, status?, ...)), and instructing how to use params. This goes far beyond the bare schema, which only has generic descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Directory/identity:' and lists the main operations (me, memberList, agentProfiles, etc.), making the tool's purpose very clear and distinguishing it as the central identity/directory tool among 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (as, tm, comm, etc.). It only details how to invoke methods within 'core', not when it is appropriate to choose this tool over alternatives.

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