wrapper_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is an analysis operation, not a mutation ("not a registry mutation"), and that results are "evidence with confidence," which is useful context. It does not describe failure modes, confidence thresholds, or whether graph state is required.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second adds a useful behavioral qualifier about evidence-based output versus mutation.

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?

The description conveys the core behavior and output nature, but with no output schema or annotations, it leaves significant unknowns such as return shape, confidence format, and graph prerequisites. Enough context is given for basic selection, but not full call confidence.

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 explain `function`, `limit`, or `format`. The prose clarifies the purpose but not the meaning of any parameter beyond the obvious requirement of a function symbol. It therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb, "Infer", with a clear resource, "wrapper semantics," and enumerates meaningful role categories (allocator, deallocator, I/O, validator, forwarding call). It is distinct enough from siblings like callees or callers because it targets high-level wrapper semantics, though it does not explicitly name a sibling 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 implies the intended use case: derive wrapper semantics from graph evidence, and it explicitly excludes registry mutation, which reduces ambiguity. However, it does not state alternative tools to prefer in other scenarios or dependencies like whether the graph must be loaded first.

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