reasoning_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default human-readable narrative output, the raw JSON alternative, and temporal_context format. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or what 'fiber bundle details' contain. Some behavioral clarity is present, but not comprehensive.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver the essential purpose, default behavior, and a key parameter format. No filler or redundant phrasing. The front-loaded first sentence immediately establishes what the tool 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable baseline for basic invocation. It explains the main return modes and a parameter format, but omits depth semantics, output structure, and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'narrative' (defaults to true, raw JSON if false) and 'temporal_context' (ISO 8601 or Unix timestamp). It does not explain 'depth', although 'query' is self-explanatory. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 identifies the verb ('Query') and the resource ('Temporal Causal Reasoning Graph'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reasoning_explore, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 parameter-level guidance (narrative mode, temporal_context) but does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings such as reasoning_explore or reasoning_ingest. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving tool selection largely to inference.

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