try_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses fork isolation, execution in parallel, what each fork includes, the outputs (diff, test result, wall-clock, cost), the benchmark ordering after tests pass, the expected metric format, and winner selection. This is rich behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 well-structured in three short paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance: the example clarifies strategy diversity, the benchmark paragraph adds precise operational detail, and the final pointer to apply_winner closes the workflow.

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 covers the core workflow, constraints, benchmark semantics, and follow-up action; an output schema exists so return-value details need not be spelled out. The only notable gap is that it does not state what happens when no 'benchmark_cmd' is supplied, i.e., whether there is still a winner or how the agent should decide.

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 clearly explains 'approaches' (2-8, short label + instruction) and 'benchmark_cmd' (runs after tests, prints SUPERPOSE_METRIC, lower is better). It does not explicitly map every parameter name like 'repo_path' or 'test_cmd' to its schema property, though their roles are implied strongly by context.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Run several genuinely different strategies... each in its own forked machine' and explicitly lists what is returned. It also separates itself from 'apply_winner' by framing that tool as the follow-up step, making the purpose and boundary 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Call this instead of picking one approach yourself whenever a task has more than one plausible strategy,' with a concrete example. It also specifies the 2-8 approach limit, how each approach should be phrased, and when to use the winner with 'apply_winner.'

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