PAIDEIA__parse_paideia_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-discovery behavior when repo_root is omitted but fails to mention side effects, permissions, or return values. The core action 'parse into canonical action catalog' lacks detail on what that entails.

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 three sentences, but the first two are mostly about naming alias and searching, which could be considered redundant. The third sentence is concise. Some waste, but overall acceptable.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the outcome of parsing, such as what the 'canonical action catalog' is and whether it returns data or mutates state. The auto-discovery hint is helpful but insufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 'Parse a PAIDEIA repo into the canonical action catalog,' which specifies the verb, resource, and outcome. However, it does not differentiate from the non-prefixed sibling 'parse_paideia_repo,' so clarity is slightly reduced.

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 only guideline is a naming instruction ('Use this exact name when Alt searches for PAIDEIA__parse_paideia_repo'), which does not help with when to use this tool versus alternatives like the non-prefixed version or other parsing tools.

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