Era-specific pitfalls and gotchas

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 explains the tool returns a list and can filter, but does not disclose whether results are exhaustive, sorted, or if there are any side effects. Since it's a read operation, the absence of negative behaviors is acceptable, but more detail on output format would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, no extraneous words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, filtering capability, and when to use it.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and usage context. It explains the return type conceptually (list of pitfalls) and filtering options. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., string list) for completeness, but currently it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (era and topic) with clear descriptions and enum for era. The description adds value by listing example topic values, which helps the agent understand valid inputs. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the examples justify maintaining that score.

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 it returns 'common mistakes, breaking changes, and surprising behaviors per era.' The verb 'returns' combined with resource 'list' and scope 'per era' makes the purpose explicit. It also lists example topics to clarify the domain.

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 explicitly advises proactive use 'when the user starts a non-trivial task in a specific area.' It also mentions filtering by topic, giving concrete examples. It does not specify when not to use it or compare with siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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