crystal_triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the categorization rules (keep = active, cleanup = concluded/abandoned with 0 open leases, plus a review bucket), which is genuinely useful decision logic. It never states whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, or whether it changes state, which is a notable gap for a triage tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the outcome categories; no filler. It is slightly clause-heavy but every clause contributes information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight; it partially compensates by enumerating the three result buckets. It still omits the return format, whether any state is modified, and any safety profile, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of a triage operation.

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 aging, json_output, and include_archived are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond a passing reference to 'aging'.

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 a specific verb (triage) and resource (cave crystals) and defines the three output buckets precisely, so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like crystal_list or crystal_melt, leaving the agent to infer when triage is preferable.

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 phrase 'for lifecycle hygiene and aging' hints at intent but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many crystal_* siblings. The agent gets no guidance on when this tool is the right choice over crystal_list.

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