Project Tessera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite workflow (call suggest_cleanup first) and need for user confirmation, which are important behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't describe what 'organize' actually does for each action type, potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and action types, while the second provides critical usage guidelines. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating action types from the core purpose.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the workflow prerequisites well but doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values (though output schema exists), or the actual behavior of different actions. For a multi-action file manipulation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 only mentions the 'action' parameter with its possible values, leaving 4 other parameters (path, destination, new_name, recursive) completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Organize files in the workspace' with specific actions listed ('move', 'archive', 'rename', 'list'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'suggest_cleanup' by being the execution tool, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file-related tools like 'read_file' or 'view_file_full'.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always call suggest_cleanup first and get user confirmation before organizing.' This gives clear prerequisites and when-not-to-use guidance (without prior cleanup suggestion and user confirmation). It also references the sibling tool 'suggest_cleanup' as an alternative/precursor.

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