Narya Toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the tool is static and does not run Narya, so it has no evaluation side effects. It does not address permissions, file-resolution behavior, or failure modes for a non-.ny input, but the critical safety/behavioral fact is stated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the content summary front-loaded and the static/no-execution caveat last. No filler.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the payload plus the holes information. What remains thin is parameter guidance (what a valid 'file' value is), which is the only real gap for this simple one-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'file' parameter has no description in the schema. The description only implies it is a '.ny file', adding marginal meaning (source file path) without clarifying path resolution or format 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?

States a specific verb (outline) and resource (.ny file), then enumerates what the outline contains (commands, names, line ranges, holes). The closing clause 'Static; does not run Narya' separates it from execution-oriented siblings such as narya_exec and narya_try.

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?

The 'Static; does not run Narya' clause gives a clear when-to-use signal (structural inspection without evaluation) and implicitly a when-not (use an execution/check tool if you need evaluation). It does not, however, name a specific alternative sibling to route to.

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