edict-lang

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the execution process (load WASM, verify checksum, run) and mentions structured output with exit code and return value, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, side effects, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool that executes external code.

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 efficiently conveys the core action, process steps, and return value. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (executing WASM code with sandbox limits), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic process and output structure but omits details on security implications, error cases, or performance constraints, which are important for such a tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'skill' parameter is a 'SkillPackage JSON (produced by edict_package or edict_export)', which provides semantic context beyond the schema's structural definition. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and format.

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 action ('Execute a packaged Edict skill') and the resource ('WASM from a SkillPackage'), specifying the process of loading, verifying checksum, and running. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edict_invoke' or 'edict_run', which appear to be similar execution tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edict_invoke' or 'edict_run' from the sibling list. It mentions executing a packaged skill but doesn't specify prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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