get_direction

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description details the two response shapes: 'context' contains summary_markdown and truncation markers, while 'full' is the raw cluster record and cheaper. This adds meaningful behavioral context about what the agent will receive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured with a clear explanation of the view parameter and its two distinct options. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and simple parameter set, the description covers the essential purpose, the only configurable parameter's behavior, and the trade-offs between views. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description thoroughly explains the 'view' parameter, including the exact semantics and trade-offs of 'context' vs 'full'. The 'cluster_id_or_url' parameter is self-evident from its name and required status, so the description compensates well despite 0% schema coverage.

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 'Fetch a Lacuna research direction/cluster,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on fetching a single direction vs search or related-entity tools, and further defines the view options that shape the response.

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 usage when you have a cluster_id_or_url and provides guidance on choosing view ('context' recommended, 'full' for basic metadata). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_lacuna or get_direction_papers.

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