topos_assess_improvement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety profile. It adds value by explaining the tool is read-only in its own words, describes the return shape (AssessmentResult with status and deltas), and clarifies the side-by-side variant context. No contradiction with annotations, and it provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives alternatives, and the third ties to specific parameters and return type. Highly front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation: it states the purpose, names the variant params, gives alternatives, and notes the return type. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the high schema coverage fills that gap. Missing details like the exact content of status values are not critical for tool selection/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 78%, which is high, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description goes beyond this by explicitly naming the key params for the variant input (proposed_code, proposed_filepath) and framing them as the defining use case. This adds semantic clarity that the schema alone does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Compare a baseline to a side-by-side proposed variant (read-only).' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly noting it is 'for variants supplied as proposed_code or proposed_filepath.' It also mentions the return type (AssessmentResult), reinforcing the tool's role.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: 'For normal edit-in-place loops, use topos_assess_worktree_change or snapshot first with topos_begin_refactor then topos_assess_snapshot.' This directly helps the agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

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