mylar_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and succeeds: it discloses side effects (e.g., mylar_shutdown 'stops the server', mylar_update 'may restart the app'), persistence ('Applies immediately and persists to config.ini'), and auth requirements. It also notes when a function does NOT require the API key, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the general invocation pattern, then uses a clear bulleted list to cover each operation. Every line supplies necessary information without fluff; the length is appropriate for a 10-operation dispatcher and remains scannable.

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 tool is complete for its purpose: it explains the dispatch mechanism, lists all operations, specifies their arguments, flags side effects, and notes credentials. The output schema exists but doesn't reduce the need for behavioral details, which are provided. Sibling tools are clearly different domains, so no further contextual clarification is needed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains parameters for each operation in prose, such as 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters' and explicitly details argument shapes (e.g., 'Takes a dict of checkbox/text settings keyed by their config.ini name'). This fully compensates for the generic input 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 clearly states this tool handles 'mylar system operations on Mylar3' and enumerates all supported operations with specific verbs and targets (e.g., 'Check GitHub for updates', 'Clear Mylar3's in-memory log buffer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on system operations rather than comics, issues, lists, or providers.

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 provides clear context for each sub-operation, including when to use them (e.g., 'Bootstrap helper: fetch the API key' for mylar_get_api) and prerequisites (e.g., requires MYLAR_WEB_USERNAME and MYLAR_WEB_PASSWORD for set_config). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion cases, but the dispatcher nature makes such guidance largely unnecessary.

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