apcmp_logic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It explains the underlying XML persistence mechanism, discloses exactly what is returned and what is flagged, and prominently highlights critical limitations: block-to-block wiring and setting values are not recoverable, and absence of output is not proof of absence.

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?

While longer than one sentence, every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mechanism, outputs, flags, and limits in a logical, readable structure with no redundant content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description adds essential context: when to use it, what it cannot recover, and what its output can be used for. It is complete for a read-only analysis tool, addressing caveats and providing enough context for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 mentions that ACT signals are part of the output (hinting at include_signals) and the path is implied by 'out of a .apcmp archive.' However, it does not explicitly explain the effect of setting include_signals to false or describe the expected path format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a project's ACT application logic out of a .apcmp archive without importing it.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like apcmp_summary by focusing on ACT logic extraction rather than a general archive summary.

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 clear context for use: review logic without needing an import, especially when the connectivity package is missing. It also includes exclusions ('Use it for review, not as a substitute for opening the project') and limitations, but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools.

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