sculpt_grimoire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral insight: it explicitly states that unknown and concrete shader/material recipe topics cause failures and that valid topics are listed in response. This goes beyond the annotations to explain failure behavior and self-correction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, clear, and free of redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the key behavior of failing on invalid topics and listing valid ones, which is critical for correct invocation. Minor absence is the lack of return format details, but the 'grimoire page' concept and failure handling make the tool usable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'topic' parameter. It clarifies that the topic should be a technique-safe grimoire topic, not a concrete shader/material recipe, and it reveals that valid topics are enumerated on failure. This provides enough semantic guidance despite lacking examples of valid topics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('grimoire page by topic'), which clearly states the tool's action and scope. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools (sculpt_plan, sculpt_spec_gate, sculpt_compare, sculpt_pass_gate) that focus on planning, gating, or comparison rather than retrieval.

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 stating that topics must be technique-safe and that unknown or concrete recipe topics fail and list valid topics. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor any alternatives or exclusions beyond the topic constraints.

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