kirikiri_tjs2100_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Rebuild TJS2100' without revealing whether the output file is overwritten, what happens to existing files in the output path, whether the source dump folder is modified, or any side effects or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a file-writing operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. Every term contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action 'Rebuild'.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks critical context such as usage workflow, expected input format, output behavior, and any edge cases or prerequisites, making it only barely adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clue that dump_dir points to a 'sector dump folder', but it does not explain the output parameter or clarify the expected structure of dump_dir. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds only minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Rebuild' and identifies the resource 'TJS2100 from a sector dump folder', making it clear this tool reconstructs a TJS2100 file from split sector dumps. The parenthetical '(KrKrZ Merge)' reinforces its role as a merge operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kirikiri_tjs2100_split, kirikiri_tjs2100_import, and kirikiri_tjs2100_export.

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: it should be used when you have a sector dump folder and want to rebuild the original TJS2100 file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having previously split a file or the relationship to kirikiri_tjs2100_split.

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