aedile_consult

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It publicly states it 'returns' analysis results, implying read-only behavior. It lists specific checks and reuse options, giving a good picture of what the tool does without side effects.

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 sentences, highly efficient. First sentence delivers the core purpose; second sentence itemizes the return types. 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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior and what the user receives. However, it does not explain the format of results (e.g., structured vs plain text) or any ordering/pagination, which would be helpful for a consultation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It mentions plan and changes but no additional constraints or usage tips.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Consult' and resource 'Aedile', and enumerates four specific return types (codebase symbol matches, stdlib alternatives, dependency reuse options, and import cycle/layering checks). No sibling tools require differentiation.

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?

Explicitly advises to consult before implementing, establishing a clear usage context. However, no exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, though the lack of siblings reduces the need for explicit when-not.

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