PAIDEIA__hwmap

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool reads a file and returns data, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it omits details like permissions, error handling, or what happens if the file is missing, leaving 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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence identifies the alias and usage, the second defines the action. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficiently scannable.

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 is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core function. However, it lacks details on return format, relationship to sibling 'hwmap', and error scenarios, leaving questions for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters ('mode', 'project_root') described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 3 applies.

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 reads 'course-index/coverage.md' and returns 'HW-density exam-priority rows', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'hwmap' by being the PAIDEIA namespace alias, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 only advises to use this exact name when Alt searches for it, but does not provide when-to-use vs. alternatives. Siblings include both 'hwmap' and this alias, yet no guidance is given on choosing between them, limiting practical utility.

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