edict-lang

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions validation and generation capabilities but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens when composition fails. The description adds some context about fragment dependencies but misses critical behavioral traits.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second explains the mechanism and benefits. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it explains the high-level purpose well, it doesn't provide enough information about the tool's behavior, error conditions, or what the composed module looks like. The description assumes knowledge of Edict fragments and ASTs without explaining them.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'fragments' generally but doesn't elaborate on AST format or composition rules, and doesn't provide additional context for moduleName, moduleId, or check parameters.

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 specific action ('compose multiple Edict program fragments into a single module') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on fragment composition rather than checking, compiling, debugging, or other operations. It explains the mechanism ('fragments declare what they provide and require') and benefits ('enabling independent validation and incremental program generation').

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 implies usage when you have multiple fragments to combine into a module, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edict_compile or edict_package. It mentions validation and generation benefits, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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