enoch_reconcile_stale_lane

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world. The description adds only that dry_run defaults to true, implying safety by default, but does not disclose what happens when dry_run is false or any side effects. Behavioral details are insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the lack of detail makes it insufficient for effective use.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or differentiate from other tools. The agent lacks context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only mentions the default for dry_run, which is already in the schema. None of the 7 parameters are explained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for params like lane_key, machine_target, etc.

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 states the action ('Explain or reconcile') and resource ('one stale active lane'), but 'reconcile' is ambiguous and not distinguished from sibling tools like enoch_lanes or enoch_dispatch. The default dry_run=True is noted, but the exact purpose remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many related tools, but the description offers no criteria for selection.

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