topos_evaluate_code

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral context: 'never writes or runs the code' and details what the return value is: 'an EvaluationResult: the lattice verdict (SLOP…IDEAL), per-generator scores, and a next-step agent contract.' It also explains the analytical scope (CFG/CPG/UAST) and the COMPOSABLE limitation.

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 compact and front-loaded: starts with the primary action, then usage context, limitations with alternatives, and return value—all in three sentences with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return contract. It covers when to use, what it does, what it cannot do (COMPOSABLE), and that it is read-only. For a 5-parameter tool, this is thorough and gives sufficient context for 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only mentions 'raw code string' which corresponds to `code`. No additional semantics for `allow`, `verbose`, `language`, or `preferences` are provided, though the schema covers them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Score a raw code string on the SIMPLE / SECURE / NAVIGABLE quality lattice.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'a snippet not yet on disk' and explicitly stating COMPOSABLE is not reachable here, directing to `topos_evaluate_file` or `topos_evaluate_project`.

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: 'Use for a snippet not yet on disk.' It also names alternatives for cases it cannot handle: 'for [COMPOSABLE] use `topos_evaluate_file` with `gitnexus_dir`, or `topos_evaluate_project` for a whole tree.'

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