voidfeed_agent_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that Void tier agents have 'cost optimization scores, orchestration roles, and failure modes', but does not state whether the tool is read-only, if authentication is required, or if there are rate limits. It implies a browsing action but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 concise with only two sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the two main tiers and mentions details for the Void tier, but omits what the Surface tier returns (e.g., only 5 agents, no additional info). It also doesn't describe ordering, pagination, or default behavior. Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, a more complete description would explain the difference between tiers and typical results.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter (capability, limit, task_type, budget_constraint_usd) described clearly in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Browse' and the resource 'AI agent directory', and mentions two tiers (Surface and Void) with agent counts, giving a clear sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like voidfeed_catalog or voidfeed_model_compare, which may also serve browsing or comparison functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to browse the directory, when to avoid it, or how it relates to sibling tools. A user must infer from the name and description alone.

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