Darc Dok Source Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content scope (provenance, licensing terms, file hashes) but nothing beyond that — no note on caching, freshness, or whether the terms are authoritative. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the most useful item (ownership) leads. It loses a point because the fragmentary noun-phrase form leaves the leading action implicit rather than front-loading what the call does.

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?

With zero params, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the definition is close to self-sufficient — return values and safety are handled elsewhere. What is still missing is the connective tissue: what 'this list' refers to and why an agent would call this alongside darc_dok_lookup or get_version_info.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The listed return fields are informative but belong to the output schema, which already exists.

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 is a noun phrase listing the data returned (owner, edition, terms, file URLs and SHA-256s) rather than a verb stating what the tool does. It conveys the subject matter but never says explicitly 'retrieves source/ownership metadata for the DARC DOK list,' and 'this list' is an unresolved referent. It also does not distinguish it from get_version_info, which plausibly overlaps with 'which edition is served.'

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusion of the sibling lookup/search/version tools. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a metadata/provenance call rather than a data lookup.

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