iranti

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a 'narrow summary extractor' similar to a 'Claude Stop hook' and is 'explicit and works for Codex or any MCP client,' adding context about its operational scope and compatibility. However, it lacks details on error handling, persistence mechanisms, or side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage examples, and the third adds behavioral context and exclusions. There is no wasted text, and it's structured for clarity.

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 complexity (a tool for persisting summaries with 7 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and some behavioral context, though it could benefit from more details on what 'strict durable summary' entails or how summaries are stored. The lack of output schema means return values aren't explained, but the description compensates adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that 'response' should contain the assistant's text with summary patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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 tool's purpose: to persist a strict durable summary from the assistant's own response using a specific extractor. It specifies the verb ('persist') and resource ('strict durable summary'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iranti_checkpoint' or 'iranti_write' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit usage guidelines: use after specific phrases like 'the next step is...', 'the blocker is...', etc., and not for arbitrary prose or every turn. It distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives by specifying the narrow scope of application.

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