derive_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful trait: results are deliberately small to avoid superficial review, and the page is limited to items still awaiting review. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it alters review state, how filtering works, or what the response contains.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core idea before offering rationale. The second sentence earns its place by explaining why small pages matter, though the poetic phrasing could be more operationally direct.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It leaves the meaning of required 'id', the role of 'cwd', the behavior of 'include_decided', and the output structure entirely unaddressed, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain the required 'id', the meaning of 'page', or the behavior of 'include_decided.' The 'deliberately small' comment loosely relates to per_page but adds little beyond the schema's stated default of 8.

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 conveys the resource—a small page of derivations still awaiting review—but does so as a noun phrase rather than a clear action like 'list' or 'fetch.' This makes the purpose inferable but not explicit, and it does not clearly distinguish derive_page from siblings such as derive_list or derive_features.

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 phrase 'still awaiting review' and the warning about skimmed checklists imply this tool is meant for reviewing pending derivations in small chunks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of when derive_list or derive_review would be more appropriate.

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