spore_touch

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: setting a timestamp, clearing an alarm, and state transition ('returning it to growing'). It reveals the side effect on the spore's state beyond simple mutation.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and follow with usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior. Missing parameter details lower completeness slightly, but it is adequate for a straightforward mutation.

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 single parameter `spore_id` has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not add any meaning or guidance for its value. The tool's purpose implies it identifies a spore, but no clarification is provided on format or source.

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 action: 'Engage a spore: set `seen` to today and clear an elapsed `next:` alarm'. It uses specific verbs and resource terms, and distinguishes from sibling tools like spore_add or spore_update by focusing on revisiting without resolving.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Call when you revisit an open loop but aren't resolving it'. This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings are listed.

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