Narya Exec

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 reasonably well: it discloses sequential fail-fast execution, that output/messages/new holes are returned, and the key side effect that definitions are ephemeral and undone by narya_sync retracting past them. It omits timeout behavior, session prerequisites, and what happens to already-applied commands on failure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and execution semantics, then side effects. No filler sentences, though the return-value sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 output schema covers return values and the description handles the main execution model, but for a multi-command execution tool with zero parameter documentation there are gaps: timeout semantics, session lifecycle requirements, and failure-state behavior are unstated.

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 adds real meaning to the commands parameter by enumerating valid command kinds, and 'in a session' implies session_id. But the timeout parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a genuine 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 description states a specific verb (run) and resource (Narya commands in a session), and enumerates the command types (def, axiom, echo, synth, notation, import, show, undo). It also distinguishes itself from narya_sync by noting that definitions made here are not written to the file. Sibling differentiation is only partial, since it does not contrast with narya_try or narya_synth.

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?

It conveys the execution model (commands run one after another, stopping at the first failure) and the relationship to narya_sync, which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose narya_exec over siblings like narya_try, narya_check, or narya_synth, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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