New Heim Application

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context about creating a project folder and not modifying the heim folder, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system changes or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its basic behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning the tool's effect on the local file system or potential errors, but it adequately covers the main purpose given the rich schema support.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no additional value from the description.

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 specific action ('Runs heim new command'), the resource ('create application scaffolding'), and the source ('from an OpenAPI 3.0.1 specification'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy_heim_application and heim_update by focusing on initial creation rather than deployment or updating.

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 implies this tool is for initial application creation from an OpenAPI spec, suggesting usage when starting a new project. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like heim_update for existing projects, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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