norns_dust_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains that compare_backup checks the Mac backup MANIFEST.sha256 by path and size, and that hashes also compares sha256 for overlapping files and is slower. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any access requirements.

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 tight sentences with the core result front-loaded and the flag behavior following. Every clause adds information; there is no filler.

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 simple two-flag inventory tool with an output schema, the description supplies what the tool returns and what the flags do. It could be strengthened by explicitly noting read-only behavior, but the essential invocation details are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented booleans. It does so well, defining compare_backup and hashes with concrete comparison behavior and a performance note. It leaves some ambiguity about whether hashes requires compare_backup or can operate independently.

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 resource and result: files and bytes in dust, broken down per top folder and per script. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, read, or control scripts, though the phrasing is slightly verbless rather than a crisp action statement.

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?

Explains the two flags but does not say when to use this inventory tool instead of siblings like norns_list_scripts or norns_status. There is a hint that hashes is slower, but no explicit guidance on when integrity checking is appropriate.

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