Narya Holes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'List' does imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the key trait an agent needs. It also notes that file position is reported only 'when known', a small but real behavioral caveat. However, it says nothing about permissions, ordering, or whether the session must be open, leaving gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the returned fields enumerated compactly after a colon. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 has one parameter, an output schema, and low structural complexity, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It still manages to state the resource and the shape of the result, leaving only the relationship to sibling checking tools unaddressed.

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% for the single session_id parameter. The description's 'of a session' does convey that the argument selects which session's holes are listed, which is more than the bare schema offers, but it adds no format, sourcing (e.g., from narya_start/narya_sessions), or validity constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the open holes of a session') and even enumerates the fields returned. It is far more precise than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from plausibly overlapping siblings such as narya_check or narya_check_file, which could also surface unsolved goals.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a live session must exist), and no reference to an alternative tool. The phrase 'of a session' faintly implies usage after a session is established, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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