crystal_hydrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Hydrate' implies reconstruction/read, but the description never confirms it is read-only, whether it mutates crystal state, what permissions it needs, or what the beam actually contains.

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; the shaping options come early. It is efficient, though the dense jargon reduces readability more than length does.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It neither explains the returned 'context beam' nor clarifies the default traversal behavior, leaving the agent guessing about the operation's effect and output.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions. The description's list of shaping modes loosely maps to the params but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('hydrate') and resource ('context beam from a crystal') and enumerates the shaping modes. However, the domain jargon ('context beam', 'crystal') is opaque without external context, and it draws no boundary against the many crystal_* siblings such as crystal_slice_fork or crystal_checkpoint.

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 parenthetical list (tail, slice range from/to, depth, summary only) names parameter modes, not usage conditions. There is no statement of when to hydrate versus checkpointing, forking, or listing, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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