lazy_optimize_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects, and it only says 'optimize' without indicating whether files are modified, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects occur. The 'Pro feature' note is the only extra behavioral hint, and it is ambiguous.

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 text is brief and front-loaded, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient structure. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' adds little actionable information and no parameter or behavior details are included.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly: it does not explain what directory to pass, why api_key may be needed, what will be optimized, or what the result of the operation is.

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?

The schema already documents 'directory' as 'Project directory', but api_key is undocumented and the description does not mention either parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the missing api_key semantics, especially since api_key is plausibly tied to the 'Pro feature' mention, but it does not.

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 verb ('Optimize') and an object ('loading priorities'), which distinguishes the action from unrelated siblings but leaves what 'loading priorities' concretely are unspecified. It does not meaningfully differentiate itself from related lazy-loading tools like lazy_add_intersection or lazy_generate_patterns.

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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool instead of alternatives, what project state is expected, or whether a Pro entitlement or api_key is required. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' hints at a precondition but does not state it explicitly.

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