protools_merge_files

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

The description details compression modes, extension filtering, exclusion rules, and output options (inline/file, max_bytes fallback), providing sufficient behavioral context. However, it lacks information on error handling, permissions, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden.

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 sentences that first state the core purpose then list key features. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the main functionality and modes comprehensively. However, given the absence of an output schema, it would benefit from a brief note on the return format (e.g., merged text or file path), which is only partially addressed in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description's high-level summary adds context but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 of merging source code files for use as context for dialogue models, listing specific features (compression modes, extension filtering, exclusion rules, group output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like protools_code_review and protools_document_suggest, which serve different purposes.

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 assembling code files for model context but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools or scenarios is given.

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