redcon_rank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key output ('top-K paths with scores and reasons') and its workflow role, but it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any cost/performance implications. This is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and usage, and contains no filler. Every phrase serves a purpose: it explains what the tool does, when to call it, what it returns, and what to do next.

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?

For a relatively simple tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, invocation order, return content, and next step. It could further elaborate on output format or edge cases, but the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for repo, task, and top_k. The description only adds 'top-K' without providing any additional parameter syntax, defaults, or nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank repository files by relevance to a task.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the first step—'Call this FIRST'—and by referencing a follow-up tool, redcon_compress, while implicitly distinguishing from grep/reading actions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Call this FIRST on a new task, before grepping or reading' and provides a clear follow-up instruction. The guidance is strong on timing and context, but it doesn't explicitly list situations where an alternative sibling should be preferred beyond the grep/reading contrast.

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