xae

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

Despite no annotations, the description covers important behaviors: open_solution's closeExisting/discardChanges effects, error_list's limit/severityFilter behavior, dialog_probe being read-only, dialog_resolve's click and remember functionality, and the refusal of destructive prompts for auto-remember. This is thorough disclosure.

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 a single dense paragraph that packs much information but lacks formatting (e.g., bullet points or sections). While every sentence adds value, the structure could be improved for quick scanning.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most actions and their key behaviors. Missing details like return values (e.g., what status returns) are minor, and the tool's complexity is well-addressed overall.

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 only 20%, but the description substantially compensates by explaining parameters like solutionPath, closeExisting, discardChanges, limit, severityFilter, button, remember, and filter in context. However, the mode parameter is only described in the schema, leaving a small gap.

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 enumerates all actions (status, open_solution, save_all, etc.) with specific verbs and resources. Each action is distinct, and the tool is differentiated from siblings like xae_build and xae_command by being a general-purpose shell.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. Some actions have implicit usage context (e.g., dialog_probe/dialog_resolve for modal dialogs), but no general guidance on selecting this shell over others is provided.

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