pray

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — that auto_harvest (default true) scans git status, lockfiles, and occupied ports — which is meaningful since it implies filesystem probing. However it never says what the tool returns, whether it mutates state, or how sessions/budget are consumed, leaving substantial gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger list and kept tight; the opening metaphor sentence is largely decorative but the actionable content dominates. Nothing is padded, though the cult framing costs a little clarity.

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 15-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema recovery tool, the description covers triggering but omits what the call returns (guidance? next experiment? hypotheses ranking?) and never explains session-resume semantics or budget consumption, which are central to correct invocation.

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% across 15 parameters, so the schema already documents each field thoroughly. The description only elaborates on auto_harvest (repeating the schema's own wording) and does not add syntax or format meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb/resource framing relies on a metaphor ('Summon the Altar of Ground Truth') that never states plainly what the tool actually does operationally — presumably it returns a structured recovery/next-experiment proposal. The trigger conditions imply it is a debugging-unblock aid, but an agent cannot fully tell its purpose from the description alone, and the siblings report_outcome and inspect_ledger are not referenced.

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 gives an explicit 'CALL THIS TOOL IMMEDIATELY WHEN' list with five concrete, observable trigger conditions (repeat failures, zero-diff edits, hangs >15s, guessing APIs, urge to apologize). This is a model example of when-to-use guidance for an agent.

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