aide_frontmatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it states that only allowed lifecycle moves are accepted, describes refusal conditions (unchecked items, incomplete plan for briefs), says refusals name allowed next values, and clarifies that the tool never chooses a value. It does not cover permissions or return shape, but the mutation safety profile is clear.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded around read-or-change behavior, and every sentence contributes operational detail. It could be structured with clearer separation between lifecycle rules and refusal rules, but there is little waste.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers read versus write usage, which files have governed values, lifecycle transitions, and refusal behavior. Minor gaps remain around exact read return format and error cases for invalid paths.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping fields to file types (alignment for intent specs, status for plan/brief/todo) and listing the lifecycle values, which helps the agent select valid field/value combinations.

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 first sentence states a specific verb pair ('Read or change') and resource ('one governed frontmatter value of an AIDE file') with clear scope ('leaving every other byte untouched'). It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools such as aide_read, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: pass path alone to read, use alignment on intent specs, use status on plan/brief/todo files, and avoid the tool entirely for session records, research specs and brain.aide. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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