muse_collect_code_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists key features: automatic language detection, duplicate removal, and statistics. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., does it modify state?), behavior when both codeBlocks and rawText are provided, or whether the tool is idempotent. The two sentences add some context but are not comprehensive.

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 and 22 words, very concise. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists key features. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Despite 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured JSON), the relationship between codeBlocks and rawText (mutual exclusivity?), or the behavior when parameters conflict. A tool of this complexity needs more context to be fully understood.

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 each parameter is described in the schema. The description only summarizes features (auto-detect, duplicate removal, stats) that directly correspond to parameters. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 collects code blocks and conversation summaries into structured context for documentation, with verbs 'collects' and 'supports'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like muse_analyze_code (analysis) and muse_auto_tag (tagging). However, 'structured context' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about the output format.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It neither states when it is appropriate nor mentions any prerequisites or complements. This leaves the agent without information to decide among siblings.

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