dialectic_review

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation: it explains that retired/superseded claims are omitted, explains the special handling of 'disputed' as a separate bucket, and provides the output format. This helps the agent understand retrieval behavior.

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 relatively concise and includes a helpful format example. However, the parameter explanation is somewhat scattered (min_confidence details mixed with output format). Still, it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on filtering logic and output format. However, it fails to clarify the role of 'k' (likely a limit) and does not explain whether the output is paginated or how 'domain' filtering works. This leaves some ambiguity for a tool with 3 optional 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'min_confidence' parameter (values and special behavior). However, 'k' and 'domain' are barely mentioned: 'k' is not explained at all, and 'domain' is only called 'optional domain' without details on its role. The description does not cover all parameters adequately.

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: listing active claims with filtering by confidence and optional domain. It specifies that retired/superseded claims are omitted, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dialectic_claim' or 'dialectic_evidence', though the function is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'core_list' or other claim listing tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or how it compares to similar tools.

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