ik_intrinsics

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 transparency. It discloses that the tool outputs signatures and notes for each intrinsic, and enumerates the exact set of intrinsics. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool returns and its scope, which exceeds the minimal 'list' statement.

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 front-loads the action ('List the compiler intrinsics') and then provides essential details (the specific intrinsics and the fact they include signatures and notes). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what it includes, and the scope relative to other tools. The inclusion of the actual intrinsic names further enriches the context, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4. It appropriately omits any parameter discussion since none exist.

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: to list compiler intrinsics with signatures and notes. It enumerates all the specific intrinsics (@nop @sei @cli @wdr @sleep @break @burn @swap @movw @mul @goto @spm @swtch), making it unmistakable what this tool covers. It distinguishes itself from sibling reference tools by explicitly noting these are the only built-in @-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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a user needs information about compiler intrinsics. The statement 'These are the only built-in @-functions' effectively sets boundaries and differentiates it from other reference tools like ik_compiler_reference or ik_reference. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the scope is unambiguous.

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