twining_why

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: results are 'ranked by relevance', bounded by a 'token budget', and overflow appears as 'one-liners in `more`' with a mechanism to get full detail via `ids`. It does not mention safety/auth, but the read-only nature is implied by 'check'. It provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case ('Before modifying a file, check what decisions constrain it'). It packs pagination, ranking, and token budget details into a compact, readable format, with every sentence contributing meaningful 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core workflow, ranking, overflow handling, and id-based expansion. It does not fully describe the response structure or edge cases (e.g., no decisions found), but for a query tool this is adequate. The absence of an output schema makes some return-value explanation expected, and the description gives a reasonable overview.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `ids` parameter in the context of overflow ('pass their ids back via `ids` for full detail') and implicitly explaining `max_tokens` through the token budget mention. It does not elaborate on `lineage` or `include_superseded`, but those are already well-described in the schema.

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: 'Before modifying a file, check what decisions constrain it.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('decisions constraining a file'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on querying rationale, not recording or modifying decisions.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Before modifying a file, check what decisions constrain it.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list includes tools like twining_record and twining_assemble, making the query intent clear. Slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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