comet_mode

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. It describes the tool's function and optional parameter behavior adequately, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits, permissions). It does not contradict any annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise list of modes and their meanings, and ends with the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (one optional parameter with enums) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics effectively, but could benefit from details on return values or error cases to achieve full completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of each mode ('basic', 'deep research', 'analytics/visualization', 'educational'), which goes beyond the enum values in the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or interactions beyond what's implied.

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 specific action ('Switch Perplexity search mode') and resource ('Perplexity search mode'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like comet_ask or comet_connect. It provides a comprehensive list of available modes with brief explanations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool ('Switch Perplexity search mode') and provides clear alternatives for different scenarios (e.g., using 'search' for basic, 'research' for deep research). It also specifies the behavior when called without a mode ('to see current mode'), offering complete guidance on usage.

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