octave_eject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported modes, template generation when content is null, and output formats. However, it lacks information about safety (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, or side effects. The provided details are adequate but incomplete.

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 concise, with two front-loaded sentences covering core actions, modes, template generation, and output formats. Every sentence adds information. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability, but it remains efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose, modes, formats, and special behaviors. It lacks explicit details about return values or error handling, but the context signals indicate no output schema forces the description to be self-sufficient. It is largely complete for an ejection tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'sections' parameter's flexible format handling (e.g., '§3', '3', '§3::CAPABILITIES') and silent omission of non-existent sections. It also clarifies that 'content: null' triggers template generation. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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: 'Eject OCTAVE content with projection modes.' It lists specific views (canonical, authoring, executive, developer) and output formats (octave, json, yaml, markdown, gbnf). This differentiates it from sibling tools like octave_compile_grammar, octave_validate, and octave_write, which have different functions.

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 usage for exporting OCTAVE content in various projections and formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide conditions or exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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