relevant_mechanics

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

Describes what signals it reads and that it surfaces a diagnostic for uncomputable layers. No annotations, but the description adequately conveys behavior without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the overall purpose. Minor room for trimming but effective.

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 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, processing, and outputs sufficiently for a diagnostic tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. No additional semantics needed.

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 it reads the active build's signals and points each to its best corpus mechanics page, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'explain_mechanic' by focusing on the active build.

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?

Provides explicit usage: 'Use it when starting/auditing a build to read up before theorycrafting.' No exclusion or alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.

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