expand_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Full description + triangulation_notes' but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what side effects exist. The behavior is under-specified.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential information. It is not front-loaded effectively because the key action 'expand' is vague. Brevity here sacrifices clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how it handles errors. It does not cover the presence of multiple concepts or missing IDs. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'concept_id' parameter beyond its name. It does not indicate how to obtain valid concept IDs or whether they follow a specific format. The description adds no semantic value to the parameter.

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 says 'Full description + triangulation_notes' for one concept, but 'expand' is ambiguous and the purpose is unclear. It does not specify what 'full description' means or what 'triangulation_notes' are. Sibling tools like 'list_concepts' and 'register_concept' suggest concept retrieval, but the description fails to distinguish this tool's purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_concepts' or 'search'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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