myco_forage

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

No annotations were provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It states 'Side effects: none. Pure read.' and explains adapter ordering ('more-specific adapters win'). It also defines what `skipped` counts. This is transparent and helpful.

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 well-structured with a primary purpose, usage guidance, side effects, and return format. It is concise but includes necessary details. Could be slightly tighter, but overall very good.

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 no output schema, the description fully documents the return format (exit_code, target, count, skipped, items with fields). It also addresses edge cases (single-file preflight, skipped files). The tool is a simple read-only inventory, and the description covers all relevant context.

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% and the input schema already covers both parameters with defaults and examples. The description adds context for usage (e.g., single-file preflight) but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate every file under the given path that a Myco adapter can ingest'. It clearly distinguishes this tool as a preflight for myco_eat and contrasts with myco_sense for the substrate root. The sibling context shows it is one of many myco_* tools, and the description uniquely positions it.

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 tells when to use ('before a bulk myco_eat --path=<dir> invocation') and when not to ('Do NOT use this on the substrate root itself recursively — for that, prefer myco_sense or direct filesystem access'). It also provides a secondary use case: 'what's in this directory' inventory.

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