cantrip_next_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs inline, returns a summary upon completion, and has parallelism constraints (blocks concurrent runs of the same loop type). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'enrichment' entails beyond AI usage, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, starting with the core purpose. Sentences are efficient, but the parallelism explanation could be slightly condensed. Overall, it avoids unnecessary repetition and earns its place with useful information.

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 and no output schema, the description provides moderate completeness. It covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral traits, but lacks details on return values (only mentions a summary), error cases, or specific enrichment examples. For a tool with AI execution and potential side effects, more context would be beneficial.

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 both parameters (id and project). The description adds value by explaining that 'project' overrides .cantrip.json and is useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 executes an enrichment opportunity with AI, specifying it can update existing entities' missing fields (targeted) or generate new entities (bulk). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AI-powered enrichment execution, unlike tools like cantrip_connect or cantrip_history that handle connections or history.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for AI-driven enrichment, with parallelism rules (different loop types concurrently, same type blocked). It mentions using the 'project' parameter to override .cantrip.json in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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