lattice.move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return payload (resulting vertex, six bits, dimensions, stratum, and a derived reading) and explains all operator behaviors. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but the operation appears pure and well-specified.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it lists operators, explains their effects, and lists the return fields. No filler or redundant phrasing. The structure flows logically from action to parameters to output.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the operators, and the return format. It does not discuss edge cases like invalid 'op' values, but that is a minor gap for a well-defined lattice operation.

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 only lists 'op' with a brief enum-like description and 'vertex' with a min/max. The tool description adds rich semantics: it defines each operator's mathematical meaning (e.g., '+1 mod 64', '64−x', '63−x', bit flip) and clarifies the vertex range. This far exceeds the schema's minimal information.

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 action: 'Apply a lattice operator to a vertex' and enumerates each operator with its exact semantics (succ, neg, bnot, flip, to). This is distinct from sibling tools like key_derive or guide_search, which serve different purposes.

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 the exact syntax for the 'op' parameter and explains each operation, effectively teaching how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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