get_direction

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing view behavior: context returns a capped agent-oriented summary with truncation markers, while full returns the raw upstream record and is cheaper for metadata-only needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by input format and then a well-structured bulleted breakdown of the two views. Slightly verbose with line breaks, but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be fully described, yet the description still usefully characterizes what each view returns. Input format and view semantics are covered; only sibling routing is absent.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does. It explains cluster_id_or_url accepts either a numeric ID or a URL ending in that number, and it precisely defines both enum values of view, including the default and the trade-off between them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a Lacuna research direction/cluster.' The 'direction/cluster' wording disambiguates the terminology, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_direction_papers or get_author_directions, so an agent still infers the boundary.

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?

Gives clear guidance on the view parameter (context default/recommended vs full when only metadata is needed), but says nothing about when to choose get_direction over sibling tools, nor any 'when-not' conditions. Input-format guidance ('numeric cluster ID or URL') is not tool-selection guidance.

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