delphi_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — results are frequency-ranked — but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether dump_path must point to a prior dump, or how 'top' limits output. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, and the key concept (frequency-ranked inventory) is front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of missing the required input and its meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more work than it does. An agent cannot tell what dump_path should contain or how to interpret the returned unit/class inventory beyond a rough sense of ranking. It is barely sufficient to guess the tool's purpose, not to invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions dump_path (the required input) or top (the default-200 limit), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. 'Frequency-ranked' is the only faint hint at what top controls.

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 phrase 'Delphi unit (a.b.c) and TClass inventory' names the resource and implies a listing, and 'frequency-ranked' hints at ordering. However, there is no explicit verb, and the description is a noun fragment that only vaguely conveys that this tool enumerates Delphi units/classes rather than, say, extracting or decompiling them. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling delphi_methods.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of the sibling delphi_methods or when a Delphi-unit view is preferable to it. The agent must infer the tool's role purely from the name.

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