edict-lang

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes what the tool does (compiles with call-stack tracing, runs with instrumentation), what it returns (structured crash diagnostics including call stack, crash location, step count), and resource constraints (implied through 'maxSteps' parameter description). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but covers core execution behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (debug execution with instrumentation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well to explain the tool's behavior, return values, and usage context. It could potentially mention error handling or output format details, but it covers the essential aspects for a debugging tool adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'same format as edict_compile' for the AST parameter, which provides useful context, but doesn't elaborate on the 'options' object. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 with specific verbs ('execute', 'compiles', 'runs', 'returns') and resources ('Edict program with debug instrumentation', 'structured crash diagnostics'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming 'edict_compile + edict_run' and stating when to use this alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when debugging runtime failures') and when not to use alternatives ('Use this instead of edict_compile + edict_run'). It also explains the benefit ('enables targeted fixes without guessing'), giving clear context for selection.

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