carrel_meta

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether set replaces or merges existing fields, what rm destroys, or what get/ls/find return. It names the operations but leaves the mutation and safety semantics opaque.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and then enumerates actions and condition examples with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a compact tool summary.

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 covers all action names for a multi-action tool and provides useful find-condition examples, while the detailed schema covers most parameters. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the missing behavioral context around mutation effects and return values leaves clear 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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter and the action enum. The description adds condition syntax examples such as vendor=acme and total>1000, but it does not add much beyond that for the remaining parameters.

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 a specific resource (typed key/value fields on desk files) and enumerates the operations: set, get, ls, rm, and find. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from likely siblings such as carrel_fields.

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?

It implies when each action is used, for example get/ls for reading fields and find for locating files by conditions, and gives condition examples. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison with alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the right choice.

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