firepass_worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool can read/write/edit files, run bash, and search with ripgrep/ast-grep/jq, implying destructive potential. It also notes file access is sandboxed to 'cwd'. However, it omits details on permissions, network access, cleanup, or recovery after failures, which are important for an autonomous coding agent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence opener stating the purpose, a sentence listing capabilities, and a bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 (autonomous agent with many capabilities) and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, its main capabilities, and parameter usage. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this worker versus sibling tools, and missing behavioral details like expected output format or error handling prevent a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. It does provide brief explanations: for 'prompt' it says 'The coding task,' for 'cwd' it says 'Working directory to sandbox file access to,' for 'context' it says 'Optional file contents, errors, or specs to pre-load,' and for 'max_iterations' it says 'Max tool-call rounds (default 60).' While this adds some value, the explanations are minimal and do not fully compensate for the lack of 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: 'Run a coding task with FirePass worker (Kimi K2.6 Turbo + tool loop).' It specifies the verb (run), resource (coding task), and the autonomous agent (Kimi K2.6 Turbo + tool loop). This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'firepass_researcher' (likely for research) and 'firepass_reviewer' (likely for review), as the worker focuses on autonomous coding 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 implies when to use by listing capabilities like reading/writing files, running bash, and iterating autonomously. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings (researcher, reviewer, trio). No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' clauses, leaving room for ambiguity.

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