Topos Refactor Assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the loading of baselines, comparison to current file, reporting of missing/expired snapshots via blocked_by, and COMPOSABLE scoring with dep graphs. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. It is efficient and covers key behavioral aspects without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains the tool's function and error conditions adequately but lacks details on return values and the meaning of 'same status semantics'. It assumes familiarity with topos_assess_improvement, leaving some gaps for a standalone understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as linking snapshot_id to topos_begin_refactor, but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 assesses the current file against a baseline from topos_begin_refactor, uses specific verbs 'Assess' and 'Loads', and distinguishes itself from sibling tool topos_assess_improvement by mentioning same status semantics and COMPOSABLE scoring.

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 establishes context by referencing topos_begin_refactor and topos_assess_improvement, providing implicit guidance on when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit statements on when not to use it or direct alternatives.

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