Narya Check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses session reuse ('an open one is reused, otherwise one is started and kept, so later checks are fast'), that snippet definitions are undone afterwards, that the no-file mode requires its own imports relative to `directory`, and that holes fail in that mode. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then two clearly demarcated conditional paragraphs. The density is reasonable for the complexity, though the two long parenthetical clauses in the first paragraph make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and mutation/session side effects are covered. The description is nearly complete for a 4-parameter tool; only the `timeout` parameter and sibling differentiation against narya_check_file are missing.

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, and it explains `file`, `source` and `directory` (imports relative to it) with real semantics. It never mentions the `timeout` parameter, one of the four, which is the only gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (typecheck) and resource (snippet of Narya commands) and even names typical command kinds. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling narya_check_file, leaving the agent to infer that this one takes an inline snippet while that one targets a file.

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 splits usage into two explicit modes ('With `file`' vs 'Without `file`') and says which context each applies to, including a concrete use case ('the way to try out a lemma next to the code that needs it'). It lacks any explicit routing to alternatives such as narya_check_file or narya_try, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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