chaprola_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sorted and .F requirements, but does not disclose what happens if inputs violate these, how the key is used, whether overwriting occurs, error handling, or return values. This is a significant gap for a merge operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 that there are 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits key role, failure modes, output format, and behavior details, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about sorted and .F format, but does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema—e.g., it does not explain the key field's role or relationship between file_a, file_b, and output.

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 'Merge two sorted data files into one' with a specific verb and resource, and adds a format requirement (.F). It is self-explanatory, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like chaprola_consolidate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the intended use case—merging two sorted, same-format files—and mentions a key prerequisite (same format). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions like key requirements.

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