tie_deviances_by_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that there is no date filter, that it returns full detail, and that verbose=False drops giant attribute values and renders descriptions – concrete behavior beyond the schema.

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?

A one-line summary is followed by a tidy Arg list with each parameter on its own line. No redundant filler; all lines add semantic value.

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?

It covers the tool's purpose and all parameters, but since there is no output schema, it doesn't describe the shape of the returned deviance items or error handling. The absence of explicit alternative-tool guidance leaves a small gap in the overall context.

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 Args block explains all five parameters, including page being 1-based, per_page as results per page, verbose behavior, and pointers to resource schemas. Since the schema itself has no descriptions, this fully compensates.

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 opens with 'List IoE deviances for a specific directory', providing a clear verb and scoped resource. 'Full detail, no date filter' adds behavioral scope and differentiates it from siblings like tie_deviances and tie_deviances_by_checker.

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?

It clearly states this is for a specific directory, which implies the primary use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses exclusionary guidance.

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