query_chromadb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries for documents but doesn't describe what the query does (e.g., semantic search, keyword matching), how results are ranked, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a query 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core function. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details, but it avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a query tool. It covers the basic purpose and domain but lacks details on return format (e.g., document structure, metadata), error handling, or performance characteristics. This is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'query' generically but doesn't elaborate on query syntax or 'nResults' behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Query the ChromaDB ExchangeResearch collection for relevant documents.' It specifies the verb (query), resource (ChromaDB ExchangeResearch collection), and target outcome (find relevant documents). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 implied usage context: 'Use this to find information related to exchange research, trading, or financial data.' This gives general guidance on when to use the tool but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or named alternatives. With no sibling tools, it cannot offer comparative guidance.

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