Charlie: scan for toil

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a prioritized queue and lists the kinds of toil it detects. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying what is scanned. No contradictions are present.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence effectively lists toil types, and the second provides a usage hint. While the list is long, it is acceptable for a scanning tool. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 8 parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It only addresses mode and indirectly implies repo (scan a repository). The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the parameter semantics are severely lacking, making the tool hard to use without further documentation.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'mode' parameter (mode='plain'). The other seven parameters (repo, kinds, limit, offset, online, github_repo, include_github) are not described. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool scans a repository for toil, listing numerous specific types (flaky tests, TODOs, etc.). The name and title are descriptive, and it is distinct from sibling tools which likely perform different operations (e.g., charlie_did_it, charlie_trend).

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 mentions setting mode='plain' for a flavor-free report, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over others. The context of scanning for toil is clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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