spore_ascend

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 in v1 the tool only records a pointer, and the actual write is left to the host. This is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other aspects like idempotency, error states, or whether the spore state changes, which would improve transparency.

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 sentence but packed with domain-specific jargon that may confuse. It is not overly long, but the metaphorical framing reduces efficiency. Some phrases like 'the membrane INTO retrospective memory' are decorative rather than informative, adding noise without earning their place.

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 absence of an output schema and the existence of many sibling tools with similar names, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'resolving upward' means in contrast to 'descend', nor does it specify what happens to the spore after this action (e.g., is it consumed?). The cryptic language leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 67% (spore_id lacks description). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'ref' is a pointer to what the spore became and that 'kind' must be valid for the spore's type. This elaborates beyond the schema's enum descriptions, helping the agent understand the relationship between parameters.

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 uses metaphorical language ('resolve a spore UPWARD', 'membrane INTO retrospective memory') which obscures the primary action. It states that it records a ref and kind, but the core purpose is not clearly defined in plain terms. It partially distinguishes from siblings by specifying that the actual write is deferred, but the jargon reduces clarity.

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 implicit constraints on valid kind values based on spore type (task, question, thought), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like spore_descend or spore_add. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, nor any mention of prerequisites or context.

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