moose_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the key behavior: if no vetted example matches, it returns [NEEDS AUTHOR] and declines authoritative answers, and it never falls back to unvetted community code unless asked explicitly. This covers the main behavioral traits effectively, though it omits any mention of permissions or side effects, which are less critical for a read-only lookup.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: the main action, examples for context, and edge-case behavior. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return values (matching example or [NEEDS AUTHOR]) and the special behavior. It also provides context about being Pillar 2 and the types of missions, making it sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'pattern' parameter with examples. The description adds contextual examples (STATIONKEEP, FLEET) but does not materially change the meaning or syntax of the parameter. Therefore, it does not go beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 returns a matching vetted author example for a pattern, which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'vetted author examples' and its refusal to fall back to unvetted community code, making its role unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving authoritative, vetted examples and notes that it will not use unvetted code unless explicitly requested. It provides context on when to rely on it, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations where those alternatives should be used instead, resulting in a minor gap.

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