spore_descend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'close' that does not affect retrospective memory, and explains the special meaning of 'composted'. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It uses backticks for code-like elements sparingly. No redundant information, though slightly dense.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential behavioral context (not crossing into memory) and parameter constraints. However, it lacks explanation of return values or prerequisites, and the spore_id parameter is left undocumented, which is a gap for a tool with two required 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 only 50% (only 'kind' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'kind' by explaining the type-dependent validity, but does not describe 'spore_id' beyond its schema definition. It partially offsets the gap but is not comprehensive.

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 the specific verb 'resolve' with 'spore', clearly indicating downward action. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'downward' and 'self-clean', and provides a mapping of kind values per spore type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (to close a spore downward) and contrasts with alternatives by noting it does not cross into retrospective memory. It gives guidelines on valid kind values per spore type, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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