akai_canon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutation. The description is purely functional without transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence plus a category. It is front-loaded with the tool name. While it could be longer to cover missing details, it earns its place with no fluff.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the canonicalization process, expected input format, or return behavior. The agent would likely lack sufficient context to use it 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'args' and 'stdin'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, but per the rubric, high coverage gives a baseline of 3. No extra value is provided, but no harm either.

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 it does 'structure-aware canonicalization via Tree-sitter' and categorizes it as 'data'. This provides a general idea but lacks specificity about what 'canonicalization' means in practice. It avoids tautology but is vague enough that an agent might not know exactly what the tool does.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description provides no context for selection.

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