crosspad_toolsets

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

The description discloses useful behavior such as emitting tools/list_changed and excluding tools hidden by a readonly policy, but it directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation by describing mutating enable/disable actions and a change event. Per the rubric, a description that contraindicates annotations earns a 1.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and essential operational rules packed into two sentences. Every clause adds value, with no meaningless 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?

The description covers initial state, all actions, constraints, side-effect guidance, and the readonly policy, which is very complete for an agent invoking the tool. It loses a point because the readOnlyHint annotation conflict leaves the agent uncertain whether calling the tool is truly side-effect-free.

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?

Despite the schema describing both parameters, the description adds meaning well beyond the enum and names: list shows enabled state, enable/disable pair with toolset, core cannot be disabled, describe returns safety tiers, and the valid toolsets are enumerated. This gives the agent actionable semantics for both 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Manage which crosspad_* toolsets are visible') and then lists the exact actions and toolsets, making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from the crosspad_* sibling tools, which are build, repo, device, doctor, and task operations rather than toolset visibility management.

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?

It states when to use each action (list, enable, disable, describe), the initial state (only core on), and the constraint that core cannot be disabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-non to use this tool, but no sibling tool overlaps this toolset-visibility role, so the guidance is clear enough.

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