tmf_warm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares the operation read-only, notes that the optional path is containment-checked (a security/validation property), and discloses that coverage is partial and that stale data should degrade to the authoritative source. It stops short of describing failure modes or return format, but the safety and correctness caveats are substantive.

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 definition is a single front-loaded clause stating what the tool does, followed by terse caveats. The telegraphic semicolon style is dense but every clause carries distinct information, so little space is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should carry more weight than it does. It conveys behavior and correctness caveats well, but omits what the tool returns and how it relates to sibling tools like tmf_stale_slice, which an agent would need to choose 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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It does add two useful facts – the path is optional and is containment-checked – but gives no format, syntax, or example, leaving the agent to infer what a valid path looks like.

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 'Read-only source derivation into .tmf cache' identifies a verb-like action (deriving/warming) and a resource (.tmf cache), so the agent gets a rough sense of what happens. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like tmf_retrieve, tmf_stale_slice, or tmf_fragment, leaving the exact scope of 'warm' ambiguous.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus the nine sibling tools. The caveats ('Partial coverage; fresh != correct; source is authoritative; stale should degrade to source') hint at trust and fallback behavior but never tell the agent which situations should route here.

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