mako_help

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that it is read-only and does not execute steps, which aligns with annotations but does not provide significant new behavioral context beyond them.

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 very concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, input, output, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and efficiently lists relevant sibling tools.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description does not elaborate on the many optional input parameters. It mentions the high-level return structure but lacks detail on how to use the optional fields like projectId or route. For a tool with 9 parameters, the description feels incomplete.

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 should explain parameters. Only the 'task' parameter is implied by 'given a natural-language task'. The other 8 parameters (e.g., projectId, focusFiles) are not mentioned, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 function as an orientation tool that returns a recommended Mako workflow recipe given a natural-language task. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it should be used before deciding which tools like context_packet to start with.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use before reading long AGENTS/CLAUDE docs when deciding whether to start with [...]'), and clarifies that it does not execute steps. Could be improved by mentioning scenarios where it is not needed.

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