Narya Try

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it does not commit ('without solving it'), caps input at 20 candidates, and describes the result shape (per-candidate typecheck results with errors, plus the first success). It does not cover the timeout behavior, side effects, or whether candidates are evaluated sequentially.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the what and the non-committal constraint, then the return shape, then the follow-up action. 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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description adds a useful summary anyway. For a 4-param tool with no annotations, two undocumented parameters (session_id, timeout) and no note on session prerequisites leave a modest gap.

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 for 'terms' (up to 20 candidates that are typechecked) and 'hole' (typed in its context), but 'session_id' and 'timeout' are never mentioned and neither param has format or indexing details.

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 and resource: check candidate terms against a hole's type in its context, and explicitly says it does not solve the hole. That contrasts it with narya_solve, but it leaves potential overlap with other checking siblings (narya_check, narya_synth) unaddressed.

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?

Gives a clear workflow rule: probe candidates here without committing, then 'Commit with narya_solve.' The alternative and the condition for switching to it are stated. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites (session must exist, hole must be valid) are given.

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