Spy Write Python

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the high-level transformation. It omits critical details such as the effect of the 'replace' parameter (default true), whether it requires an open project, or any side effects on existing code in the tab. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise but under-specified. It is front-loaded with 'THE MAIN BUILD TOOL', but the single sentence lacks necessary details about parameters and behavior. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is inappropriately brief, failing to earn its completeness.

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?

The description is markedly incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters (one required) and no annotations. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, how the file parameter works, or the behavior of the replace flag. Given the complexity and the need to guide an agent, this description is grossly inadequate.

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 by explaining the parameters. It only hints at 'source' through 'give ordinary Python' but says nothing about the 'file' parameter or the 'replace' boolean. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 core function: converting Python source into Scratch blocks. It uses the phrase 'THE MAIN BUILD TOOL' to establish its primary role, and 'give ordinary Python, it becomes Scratch blocks' precisely describes the transformation, distinguishing it from other project manipulation tools.

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 implies this is the primary build tool ('THE MAIN BUILD TOOL'), giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like spy_import_python_file or project_build, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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