Narya Check File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: costs (slow, every import reloaded), failure semantics (stops at the first error; errors carry file/line/column), result semantics (ok/clean/errors/warnings/axioms/holes/timing), and a non-obvious fallback (compiled-import anomaly triggers automatic source recheck). That is well beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key cost warning, and every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy: 'slow' and the source_only recheck are each stated twice, which slightly dilutes an otherwise dense paragraph.

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 enumerating return fields is optional courtesy rather than necessity, and the error/hole/axiom semantics plus the stop-at-first-error rule make the tool's behavior predictable. The only real hole is the undocumented timeout parameter, which leaves one calling decision unguided.

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 fully explains source_only's behavior and its cost trade-off, and 'file' is self-evident from the typecheck framing, but the timeout parameter is never mentioned anywhere — an agent has no idea what it bounds or in what units.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Typecheck a .ny file') plus the distinguishing scope ('fresh Narya run', 'authoritative check'). It also contrasts itself with the session workflow (narya_start + narya_sync), so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('final verdict') and names the alternative workflow for iteration ('keep a session instead: narya_start once, then edit the file and call narya_sync'). Exclusions and conditions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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