sourcesage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'register' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this creates new entities or updates existing ones, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. The description provides basic functional information but lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter documentation section. Each parameter gets a brief explanation with helpful examples. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence serves a purpose. The structure helps the agent understand both what the tool does and what information it needs.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate functional information but lacks important contextual details. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters well, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The parameter documentation is strong, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 description provides a comprehensive parameter list with clear semantics for all 7 parameters, including examples for 'name' and 'signature'. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description is essential and adds significant value beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify which parameters are required versus optional, though the schema indicates 3 required parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Register a code entity in the knowledge graph.' It specifies the verb ('register') and resource ('code entity'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'register_pattern' or 'register_relationship', the focus on 'code entity' provides some distinction. However, it doesn't fully explain how this differs from similar registration tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'add_entity_observation', 'register_pattern', and 'register_relationship', there's no indication of when this registration tool is appropriate versus those other tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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