aia_merge

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious behavior, screen collision prefixing with the source project tag, and mentions the AIA Stitch engine. However, it does not state whether the input files are read-only, how ordering affects the merge, or what happens when the out_path already exists.

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?

Two sentences, no clutter, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The parenthetical about the engine adds useful provenance without distracting from the main description.

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 merge tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the central operation and a critical collision behavior. But it leaves open questions such as what project_name controls, what the merge does with non-screen resources, and whether out_path is overwritten, so an agent has to make assumptions.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explicitly explain the semantic meaning of project_name or fully map input_paths and out_path beyond the merge concept. The description provides some inferable hints, but the required project_name parameter is left vague, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Starts with a specific action ('Merge multiple .aia files into one') and names the resource type, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like aia_create_project and aia_add_screen. The extra detail about colliding screens being prefixed removes ambiguity about what the merge does.

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 makes the use case clear: combine multiple .aia files into a single project. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough in the context of the sibling tools.

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