Carry minds' knowledge in one small file

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the file is 'signed', 'a tampered carry is refused', results 'return digests and counts', and each operation costs 'one job'. The tamper-refusal and nonzero cost are valuable traits not derivable from annotations. It could still say more about failure modes, but this is solid.

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 front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then operations, then inputs, then return/cost. Every sentence carries signal. The terse arrow notation compresses detail at some cost to readability, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description is reasonably complete for understanding what the tool is. However, for a multi-operation tool with a fully untyped params object (0% coverage) and several competing siblings, the description does not supply enough invocation detail or routing guidance to be considered 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 0% – op is an untyped string with no enum and params is a free-form object. The description compensates partially by naming the valid ops (pack/verify/merge, functioning as an implicit enum) and sketching inputs ('source/carry paths, output path'), but it never maps which key inside params holds which path, so the params contract remains opaque.

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 names a concrete resource ('carry file') and enumerates the three operations it supports (pack, verify, merge) with a brief gloss on each. This lets an agent understand the tool without opening the schema. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like singularis_mind_merge_v2, singularis_mind_combine_v2, and singularis_knowledge_packs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

By describing what each op does ('pack (mind statistic files -> one carry file)', 'verify (check a carry file's seal and digest)', 'merge (combine carry files)'), the description implies when each operation applies. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never addresses the near-identical merge/combine siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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