bluemouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'spec' as a JSON string adds minimal context but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key parameter requirement. Every word earns its place—there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows up with a specific instruction for the 'spec' parameter.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation purpose and one parameter's semantics, but lacks behavioral context and guidance for usage. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'spec' parameter by explaining it should be 'a JSON string defining inputs/outputs/constraints', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema. However, it provides no information about 'parent_id' or 'name' parameters, leaving two of three parameters with minimal semantic context. This partial compensation results in an average score.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new node in the architecture', providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mmla_update_status' and 'mmla_validate_code' by focusing on creation rather than modification or validation. However, it doesn't specify what type of architecture (e.g., software, data, organizational) this refers to, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent node), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'analyze_requirement_trap' or 'deliver_bluemouse_project'. The only implied usage is for creating nodes, but no context on appropriate scenarios or constraints.

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