instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explicitly states the tool is 'Safe and idempotent — running more than once per day is fine,' which communicates important behavioral traits. It also describes what the tool does (four specific maintenance operations) and what it returns. While it doesn't mention potential side effects or performance implications, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 excellently structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then details the four combined steps in a numbered list, provides important behavioral context, offers usage guidance with alternatives, and finally documents parameters and return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (combining four maintenance operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, parameter details, and return values. The output schema handles the return structure documentation, allowing the description to focus on operational context. For a multi-operation maintenance tool with no annotations, this description provides comprehensive contextual understanding.

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 adds significant meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining 'dedup_threshold: Similarity cutoff for step 2, 0.0-1.0. Default 0.75. See find_duplicates() for tuning notes.' This provides the parameter's purpose, valid range, default value, and references related documentation - all information missing from the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'Run all store-maintenance tasks in one call: decay, dedup, orphans, FTS.' It explicitly lists the four combined housekeeping steps and distinguishes this tool from its siblings by noting that 'the individual steps are available as find_duplicates() + alias_pattern() + (internal) decay.' This provides clear differentiation from sibling tools like find_duplicates and alias_pattern.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'Safe and idempotent — running more than once per day is fine' and directly contrasts with alternatives: 'For finer control, the individual steps are available as find_duplicates() + alias_pattern() + (internal) decay.' This gives clear context about appropriate usage frequency and when to choose this comprehensive tool versus more granular alternatives.

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