tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions this is for 'attaching implementation evidence' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the binding is reversible, what happens on duplicate binding attempts, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and positioning in the workflow. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks important behavioral details about permissions, idempotency, and error conditions that would be needed for robust agent usage, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the three relation types but doesn't provide additional context about when to choose each one beyond what's already in the schema's enum description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Link a symbol to a contract') and specifies the three possible relations ('provides', 'consumes', or 'documents'). It distinguishes this tool from 'record_contract' by mentioning it's used 'after record_contract', but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other sibling tools like 'link_decision' or 'set_service_mapping' that might also create relationships.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('after record_contract to attach implementation evidence'), which helps position it in a workflow. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as when to choose 'link_decision' instead for different relationship types.

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