meld

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: the read is non-mutating ('does not move the clock') and access is gated by possession of the code ('the code is the capability'). It does not cover error behavior, whether the bridge can expire, or what the returned payload contains.

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?

Three very short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a successful read returns (bridge content? metadata?) and what failure looks like. Terms like 'bridge' and 'meld' are never defined, leaving the agent to infer the domain.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema already documents its origin ('from the capability URL'). The description reinforces the parameter's significance via 'the code is the capability' but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Read a live bridge by code.' The 'read' verb distinguishes it from meld_create and meld_resolve by implication, though it never names those siblings or contrasts their purposes. An agent can tell this retrieves something, but must infer what a 'bridge' is.

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 code is the capability' and 'does not move the clock' implicitly tell the agent this is a non-mutating lookup keyed on possession of a code. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition distinguishing it from meld_resolve, and no statement of what happens when the code is invalid or expired.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral rule: the first reply sets a 24-hour timer and each later reply resets it. However, it omits permissions, side effects, what happens after expiry, and what 'resolve' actually means for the meld. This is valuable but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the timer behavior following immediately. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the core behavior easy to grasp.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the critical 24-hour timer behavior but leaves key context unexplained: what a 'bridge' is, how 'resolve' relates to replying, and what happens after expiry. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (pin, code, context) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that a reply is tied to a bridge identified by code. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action (append a reply) on a resource it calls a 'bridge', but neither term is defined, and the tool's name 'meld_resolve' is not reflected. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings meld_create or meld_read. Purpose is implied but vague for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The text implies you use it to reply, but gives no conditions for choosing it over meld_create or meld_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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