popper_clarify

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the two-call behavior and that the first call returns a drafting prompt and relevant files while the second validates and locks the contract. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if validation fails, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 conveys the purpose, the two-step process, and the return value in a compact manner. No unnecessary words.

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's role in a larger problem-solving workflow (indicated by sibling tools), the description adequately explains the tool's function and the required two-call sequence. It does not detail return format or error handling, but the core behavior is sufficiently covered for an agent 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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the two-call context and that the 'contract' parameter should be omitted on the first call. This clarifies the optionality beyond the schema's 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 tool's purpose: converting a raw problem statement into a locked problem contract. It specifies a two-step process (draft then lock) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like popper_understand and popper_implement by focusing on the initial clarification phase.

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 explicitly outlines the two-call usage pattern: first call without a contract, second call with a contract. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes its role clear.

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