topos_assess_improvement

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

The description states read-only behavior and returns an AssessmentResult with status and deltas. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context about the output format. No contradictions. It could be improved by clarifying the exact metrics or behavior on missing baselines.

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: first states core purpose and read-only nature, second gives usage guidelines, third mentions return type. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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 (0 required), 78% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the main scenario and distinguishes from siblings. It mentions return type but lacks detail on the AssessmentResult structure beyond status and deltas. Given the complexity, it is fairly complete but could elaborate on the outcome format.

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% (high), so baseline is 3. The description highlights that the tool is for variants supplied as proposed_code or proposed_filepath, adding context to those parameters. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like allow, language, preferences, etc. The description adds marginal value beyond 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Compare a baseline to a side-by-side proposed variant (read-only).' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools for different scenarios (topos_assess_worktree_change, topos_assess_snapshot). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'For normal edit-in-place loops, use topos_assess_worktree_change or snapshot first... This tool is for variants supplied as proposed_code or proposed_filepath.' This clearly differentiates from siblings and informs the agent when not to use this tool.

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