d_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only hints at different result sizes per level but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. Behavioral traits remain unclear.

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 extremely brief (10 words), front-loading the main action. However, the cryptic abbreviations ('meta', '+500ch') sacrifice clarity for conciseness. It is structured but under-informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and only 2 parameters, the description fails to give context about what the different levels return, how the hash is used, or how this tool fits among 7 siblings. Completeness is poor.

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 0%, but the description minimally explains the 'l' parameter (levels 1-3) and implies 'h' is a hash. It adds some meaning for 'l' but not for 'h', leaving the hash format unspecified. Partial compensation.

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 says 'Resolve hash' which is a verb+resource, but the level explanations are cryptic ('meta', '+500ch', 'full') without defining what hash refers to. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'd_set' or 'search', leaving purpose vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'search' or 'hf'. No context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what the levels imply for different use cases.

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