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 that the tool marks the current phase as 'locked' and sets the next phase as current, which are behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, side effects on other phases, or what happens if validation fails, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the validation condition and the state changes, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and behavior but lacks details on validation criteria, error responses, or what 'locked' entails, which are crucial for safe usage. It is minimally adequate but has 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('repo_root' and 'expected_current_phase') fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'expected_current_phase' or how 'repo_root' is used in validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('advance a phase') and the outcome ('marks current phase as "locked" and sets next phase as current'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'overseer.update_phases' or 'overseer.run_phase', which might involve phase management, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 by mentioning 'after validating all deliverables are complete,' suggesting it should be used when deliverables are ready, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'overseer.update_phases' or 'overseer.run_phase.' No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, relying on implied context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions validation and checking, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and actions. Every sentence earns its place by specifying validation target and checks, with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a validation tool. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage guidelines. Without annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the core purpose is clear.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'sentinel.yml conventions' entail or how 'strict' affects validation outcomes). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Validates repository structure against sentinel.yml conventions' with specific actions ('checks for expected directories and key files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lint_repo' or 'status' by focusing on validation against specific conventions rather than general linting or status reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'advance_phase' or 'plan_project'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when sentinel.yml exists), exclusions (e.g., not for non-repository paths), or comparisons to siblings like 'lint_repo' (which might handle broader linting). Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'maps and tracks' and identifies variable types, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it's read-only or mutative, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying actions, resources, and key functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('repo_name' and 'phase_name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'phase_name' filtering works or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('maps and tracks') and resources ('environment variables across phases'), and distinguishes its function by identifying 'required vs. optional variables'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'overseer.secrets_template' or 'overseer.check_compliance' which might also handle environment-related tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings such as 'overseer.secrets_template' for environment variable management or 'overseer.check_compliance' for validation, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates configuration but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely writes to repositories.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (generating CI/CD configs with multiple systems and options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), with the 'options' object lacking a top-level description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'phase definitions' or how 'ci_type' interacts with options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does moderate lifting.

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 action ('Generates CI/CD pipeline configuration') and resource ('based on phase definitions'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'overseer.plan_project' or 'overseer.run_phase' that might involve CI/CD aspects, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing phase definitions from other tools), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'overseer.plan_project' for planning phases, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and suggestion but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., format of phase definitions), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For an analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, with no redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (analysis tool with pattern detection), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'phase definitions' are, how suggestions are generated, or what the output looks like. For a tool that presumably returns structured analysis results, this leaves too much undefined.

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 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's implied by 'analyzes an existing repository structure' (hinting at repo_root). It doesn't explain the 'options' object or its sub-parameters. With moderate schema coverage, the description provides minimal additional parameter semantics.

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: 'Analyzes an existing repository structure to suggest phase definitions based on detected patterns.' It specifies the verb (analyzes), resource (repository structure), and outcome (suggest phase definitions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'overseer.plan_project' or 'overseer.update_phases', which might have related functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'plan_project', 'update_phases', and 'check_compliance' that might involve repository analysis or phase management, there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions detection and recommendation behaviors but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only analysis tool, if it modifies files (the 'fix' option suggests potential writes), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with a 'fix' parameter and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without waste. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key context ('based on coding standards in sentinel.yml'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 (language detection, linting recommendations, optional fixes), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how recommendations are formatted, or behavioral implications of the 'fix' option. For a tool that could potentially modify files, this lack of completeness is problematic.

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 50% (only 'repo_root' and 'fix' have descriptions, 'languages' lacks one). The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'sentinel.yml' contains, how languages are detected, or what the recommendations look like. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score.

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 with specific verbs ('detects languages', 'recommends linting commands') and resources ('repository', 'coding standards in sentinel.yml'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like overseer.check_compliance or overseer.run_phase by focusing specifically on language detection and linting command recommendations rather than broader compliance checking or execution.

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 context ('based on coding standards in sentinel.yml') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing sentinel.yml to exist or when to choose this over other linting or analysis tools among the siblings. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates files (PHASES.md, PHASE-*.md), can infer phases if not provided, and mentions overwrite/merge behavior via the parameter description. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or what 'normalize and merge' entails beyond the parameter hint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific actions and a conditional behavior, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds essential 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the main action and file creation, but lacks details on error conditions, what the created files contain, or how phase inference works, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that phases are 'inferred from project structure if not provided', which gives context for the 'phases' parameter, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 with specific verbs ('Plan', 'creating phase definitions', 'Creates PHASES.md and PHASE-*.md files') and resources ('repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like overseer.infer_phases (which only infers) or overseer.update_phases (which updates existing phases).

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 when to use this tool ('Plan a new project') and hints at an alternative approach ('Can infer phases from project structure if not provided'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific sibling alternatives like overseer.update_phases for existing projects.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading files, checking status, and creating files/TODOs, which implies mutation and file system operations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies files and creates stubs.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key actions without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with implementation details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (executing phases with file operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the high-level process but omits critical details like what the output looks like, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'aggression_level' affects file creation or what 'phase_id' corresponds to in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Execute a specific phase of a project') and the mechanism ('Reads tasks from PHASE-XX.md, checks completion status, and creates TODOs/stubs for incomplete tasks'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'overseer.advance_phase' or 'overseer.status' by focusing on execution rather than planning or checking.

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 when needing to run a project phase with task management, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'overseer.advance_phase' or 'overseer.update_phases'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'securely' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., file permissions, encryption, or access controls). It also lacks details on output format, error handling, or side effects, which are critical for a tool that creates structures for sensitive data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at parameters or outcomes, but overall it's concise and clear.

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 complexity of handling secrets (a sensitive operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the created template looks like, how it's stored, or security implications, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior in a critical context.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the template is for 'secrets and credentials,' which aligns with the schema's 'template_type' enum but doesn't provide extra context like use cases for each type. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Creates a template structure') and the resource ('for managing secrets and credentials securely'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'overseer.env_map' or 'overseer.generate_ci', which might also involve configuration or file generation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during project setup), or compare it to sibling tools like 'overseer.env_map' for environment management, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads files to determine status, implying it's a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if files are missing), performance characteristics, or what the output format looks like. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second explains the mechanism. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and how it works, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only status tool, this is adequate but could be more comprehensive to fully guide an agent.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'repo_root' as the root path of the repository. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current status of a project', including what it contains ('all phases and their states') and how it works ('Determines phase status from PHASES.md and PHASE-*.md files'). It distinguishes from siblings like overseer.advance_phase or overseer.run_phase by focusing on read-only status retrieval rather than modification or execution.

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 context by mentioning it reads from specific files (PHASES.md and PHASE-*.md), suggesting it should be used when those files exist. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like overseer.infer_phases or overseer.update_phases, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions validation and ensuring consistency but doesn't disclose whether this tool makes actual changes, what permissions are needed, error handling, or output format. 'Validates' suggests read-only but 'Ensures consistency' could imply modifications - this ambiguity is problematic.

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?

Two clear sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main function. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more operational context.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (one nested), 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what 'ensuring consistency' entails operationally, or what results to expect. The gap between schema information and operational understanding is significant.

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 50% (only 'repo_root' has description, 'options' object lacks overall description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'repo_root' should contain or how the options interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage but no compensation from description.

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: 'Ensures documentation consistency' with specific verb+resource (validates PHASES.md and PHASE-XX.md files). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'overseer.lint_repo' by focusing specifically on documentation formatting, though not all sibling differentiation is explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'overseer.lint_repo' or 'overseer.check_compliance'. The description implies usage for documentation formatting validation but provides no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Updates' implies mutation, it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid phase_id), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that packs substantial information about what can be modified. It's front-loaded with the core action and provides specific examples without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though it could potentially be more structured for readability.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes it inadequate for safe and effective tool selection by an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (repo_root, modifications) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing phase definitions'), with specific examples of what can be modified (rename, modify description, add/remove steps, deliverables, done criteria). It distinguishes from siblings like overseer.advance_phase or overseer.run_phase by focusing on definition modification rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from overseer.infer_phases which might also modify phases.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing phases to modify), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with siblings like overseer.infer_phases (which might create phases) or overseer.plan_project (which might involve phase planning). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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