copy_critique

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the automatic loading of COPY-SYSTEM.md and the detailed weighted scoring with verdicts, which enhances transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose explanation, a detailed list of scoring categories, and a final sentence covering usage order and verdicts. No wasted words, all information is relevant.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one param, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, scoring methodology, verdict thresholds, usage sequencing, and artifact loading. Minor gaps include how to interpret the score in practice and a more explicit link between project_path and the artifact.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter project_path, so baseline is 3. The description indirectly suggests project_path is used to locate COPY-SYSTEM.md, but it does not explicitly elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Self-critique the generated copy system against conversion heuristics.' It provides specific details on the 7 scoring categories and verdict thresholds, making it distinct from sibling tools like copy_generate and copy_iterate.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call AFTER copy_generate,' providing a clear usage sequence. However, it lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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