Ratchet debt burn-down

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description reveals material behavior: it reads only the marks file and its git log, ages are computed from the newest commit touching that file rather than the clock, a missing marks file yields zeros, and unmeasured checkouts return isError true with a setup pointer. This exceeds what annotations alone communicate.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core output, intended use, alternative tool, data source, age semantics, edge case, and error behavior are all packed without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema already exists, the description covers all the essential call-time knowledge: what the report contains, how to use it, what data it reads, how age is computed, and behavior for missing files and unmeasured repos. Nothing critical is left for the agent to infer.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single optional repo parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that repo can be any directory under a measured checkout and that unmeasured ones produce an isError response, which is value beyond the schema.

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: 'Reports the ratchet debt burn-down' and enumerates exactly what it contains (open marks, age, repayments, policy findings). It also names get_function_history as the sibling for single-function marks, so the tool is clearly distinguished from nearby alternatives.

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 explicitly states the intended decision use case: 'Use it to judge whether marked debt is repaid or piling up.' It also gives a direct alternative with a condition: 'get_function_history for one function's mark.' This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-elsewhere guidance.

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