Parse Carve

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output context by specifying that the result is a 'position-aware' AST, but it does not disclose behavior around errors, resolution failures, or performance characteristics.

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-formed sentence that immediately states the operation, the input, and the output. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, and the description tells the agent exactly what the tool produces. The lack of an output schema makes the 'position-aware interchange AST' mention valuable, though more detail about resolution behavior or error conditions would make it fully complete.

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 100%, and the single 'source' parameter is already documented as 'Document source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes)'. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Parse and resolve') and a specific resource ('Carve'), and names the exact output ('position-aware interchange AST'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools carve_lint, carve_format, carve_render, and carve_migrate.

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 clearly states that this tool is for parsing and resolving Carve into an AST, which gives the agent a clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is distinct enough from lint, format, render, and migrate.

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