join

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails: it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what permissions it needs, how expensive it is, or how the 'ce.join-report schema' output is shaped (and no output schema actually exists). The parenthetical schema reference is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One short line with no wasted words and the key content front-loaded, which is good; but the brevity is achieved through unexplained jargon rather than precision, so it reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a completely opaque one-liner, an agent cannot confidently determine what the tool returns or when it should be invoked. For a tool embedded among 20+ analysis siblings, this is insufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters ('days' with its default of 14, and 'path' defaulting to project root) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('join') and enumerates three signals (similarity, graph position, churn), which hints at what is combined. However, it never states what resources are being joined or what the result represents, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like 'churn', 'similar_units', or 'graph_sites'; it borders on jargon shorthand.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (churn, similar_units, check_duplication). The agent is left to guess the scenario that warrants a combined three-signal join rather than one of the single-signal tools.

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