alcove_gardener

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'safe issues' and 'optionally prune' but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., what gets pruned and whether it's reversible), rate limits, or the nature of the scan. The description is too vague to inform an agent of important behavioral constraints.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it omits important details that could be added without becoming verbose. The front-loaded structure is acceptable, but the content is minimal.

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 existence of an output schema, return values may be documented there, but the description still fails to provide adequate context for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It does not explain what 'health' means, how the scan works, what qualifies as a 'safe issue', or how pruning affects the system. The agent is left with insufficient information to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but barely does. The 'prune' parameter is hinted at by 'optionally prune safe issues', but no explanation of what happens when true vs false is given. The 'workspace' parameter is not mentioned at all. Without context from the description, the agent must rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 scans 'Alcove knowledge health' and optionally prunes 'safe issues', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'alcove_doctor' and 'alcove_validate' by focusing on safe issues rather than general diagnostics or validation, though the exact meaning of 'health' and 'safe' could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., alcove_doctor, alcove_validate). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from its name and vague description.

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