topos_evaluate_file

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond annotations: side-effecting generation/refresh of `.gitnexus`, attachment of ModuleDependencyGraph, and graceful fallback when GitNexus is unavailable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description covers main behavior, conditional generation, and fallback. It mentions `coupling_available` and `warnings` in output, providing useful context, though a full return structure might be missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context for parameters like `no_composable` (skips generation) and `gitnexus_dir` (auto-detection fallback), which enhances understanding 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 clearly states the verb 'Score' and resource 'a file on disk', and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only evaluate tool that can reach COMPOSABLE (side-effecting)'. This provides a specific and clear purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for composable evaluation) and explains the effect of the `no_composable` parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative sibling tools for other cases, so it lacks complete usage guidance.

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