Narya Synth

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits — 'Nothing is committed' (side-effect free) and that only terms that support synthesis work while 'a bare abstraction does not' (a failure-mode hint). It says nothing about session lifecycle, timeout behavior, or error semantics.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the normalize variant, with the restriction stated last. The heavy backtick/Narya-terminology inline markup adds slight reading friction but nothing is wasted.

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 not be described. For a 5-parameter tool the description covers the non-obvious semantics (normalize, hole, non-commitment, valid term forms) well; the remaining silhouette — timeout and session_id — is standard across this tool family.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It usefully explains `normalize`'s dual behavior and `hole`'s scoping effect, but leaves `session_id` and `timeout` completely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 — 'Synthesize the type of `term`' — and pins it to the underlying Narya `synth` operation, so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like narya_check, narya_try, or narya_solve, which also operate on terms.

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 gives two concrete usage conditions: use `hole` to elaborate in a hole's context, and use `normalize=True` to also normalize (the `echo` path). However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over narya_check or narya_try, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a live session.

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