crystal_artifact

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls well short. It never states that 'register' mutates persistent state, whether registration is idempotent or overwrites existing artifacts, what the cave vs crystal registries mean, or what a failed lookup returns for a 14-parameter tool with three distinct actions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though for a tool with 14 parameters and three actions it is arguably thinner than the surface area warrants, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

The schema is fully documented and carries the parameter semantics, so the description is not the sole source of detail. Still, with no annotations, no output schema, and three distinct actions sharing one parameter bag, the description should have clarified which parameters apply to which action and what register actually does to persisted state.

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% and every parameter is individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning ('virtual and physical' mirrors the substrate enum, 'cave or crystal' mirrors the cave boolean and crystal_id), offering no per-action parameter applicability beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives three specific verbs (register, list, inspect) against a named resource (artifacts) and adds scope qualifiers (virtual/physical, cave/crystal). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic siblings like crystal_delete or crystal_hydrate, but it never distinguishes itself from crystal_list, which plausibly overlaps with the 'list' action.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The agent is not told when to choose register vs inspect vs list, whether 'cave' or 'crystal' scoping should be preferred, or what preconditions exist (e.g. an id is required for register/inspect per the schema, but the description never says so).

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