Track Motifs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about return value (ranked by strength with occurrences). No contradictions. Could further detail if it searches the entire manuscript or only current scene, but 'across the manuscript' is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage guidelines. No unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded ('Trace recurring motifs...').

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately informs about return value ('ranked by strength with occurrences'). It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and scope. The tool is simple with three optional parameters, and the description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No additional usage tips or examples for parameters.

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 uses specific verbs (trace, report) and clearly identifies the resource (recurring motifs across themes, symbols, phrases, structures). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'find_mentions' by stating the difference in use case. The purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for thematic/symbolic patterns') and when not to ('use find_mentions for literal occurrences of a specific word'). Also notes the prerequisite of an open project. Provides clear context for alternative selection.

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