psfk_overview

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 returns 'up to 3 meta_patterns' and has a parameter constraint ('At least one of 'industry' or 'sector' must be provided'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read/write operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 and well-structured in just three sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies output and use case, and the third provides a critical parameter constraint. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description provides adequate context for this tool's complexity. It covers the purpose, output scope, use case, and a key parameter constraint. The main gap is lack of behavioral details about the operation's nature (read/write, side effects, etc.) which would be important without annotations.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that 'At least one of 'industry' or 'sector' must be provided' (a constraint not in the schema's required field). This provides some additional semantic context, but most parameter meaning comes from the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a structured macro overview from the PSFK Graph' with specific output ('up to 3 meta_patterns') and context ('useful for top-level briefings before deeper exploration'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('structured macro overview'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node' or 'search_graph' beyond mentioning it's for 'top-level briefings'.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for top-level briefings before deeper exploration' implies this tool should be used for initial exploration rather than detailed queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node' or 'search_graph', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter requirement.

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