topos_evaluate_file

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it generates/refreshes .gitnexus when missing or stale, attaches a ModuleDependencyGraph, and handles GitNexus absence gracefully with coupling_available=false and warnings. This exceeds the general hints in annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and adds actionable context.

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 deliver a dense but well-structured explanation. The purpose is front-loaded, side effects are in the second sentence, and failure handling in the third. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place, 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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, side effects, and dynamic generation, the description covers the essential behaviors: lattice scoring, .gitnexus generation conditions, side-effecting nature, and graceful fallback. It also mentions key output fields. Without an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between no_composable and gitnexus_dir, the default behavior related to .gitnexus, and the output fields coupling_available/warnings, which gives context beyond the property descriptions.

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 scores a file on disk on the SIMPLE/COMPOSABLE/SECURE/NAVIGABLE lattice, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by being 'the only evaluate tool that can reach COMPOSABLE', which separates it from other evaluate tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (when COMPOSABLE evaluation or file-level scoring is needed) and implies alternatives via the sibling list. It explains side-effecting behavior and the no_composable escape hatch, but it does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools.

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