Narya Solve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the action cannot be undone in Narya, that the file itself is not modified, that the result includes an edit locating the hole, and that new holes may be returned. It omits details such as timeout behavior and session-scoping requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then layers in important constraints and workflow details. Every sentence carries useful information, though some phrasing is dense.

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 do not need full explanation, but the description still usefully summarizes the important `edit` result and next-step sync requirement. It is nearly complete for the operation, with only `session_id` and `timeout` semantics left implicit.

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 explains the core semantics of `hole` and `term`, including that the term may introduce new `?` holes, but leaves `session_id` and `timeout` unexplained.

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 and resource: filling a named hole with a term, checked in the hole's context. It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like check or try, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from alternatives such as 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?

Usage is implied by the workflow instructions: apply the returned edit and re-sync the session when needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use narya_solve versus narya_try, narya_synth, or other hole-related siblings.

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