create_ldr

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

Adds specific behavior beyond annotations: it never overwrites existing files and produces a sampled header with a fresh CRC. Annotations already mark it as a non-destructive write, but the non-overwrite guarantee and output-content details are useful additional context.

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key behavioral constraint immediately after. No wasted 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?

For a tool with a complex nested input schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a 3-param signature, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what IR means, how to supply the ladder structure, what allow_unverified does, or what happens when a file already exists. Output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but input context is largely missing.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (output_name, ladder, allow_unverified). It provides no meaning for what these parameters represent or how to supply them.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (a new file), and clarifies the source (IR) and key outputs (sampled header, fresh CRC). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_start_stop or export_ldr, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as simulate_ladder, validate_ladder, or export_ldr. The only constraint given ('Never overwrite files') is a behavioral rule, not usage context.

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