clone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output-side context (ce.clone-report / ce.clone-units schemas) and that the unit universe is cached, which is useful. It says nothing about whether a judgment is persisted, permissions required, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But the density comes at the cost of clarity (unexplained 'T3', bare schema identifiers), so it is terse rather than effectively concise.

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 should explain return semantics and safety profile. It instead references two schema names (ce.clone-report, ce.clone-units) without explaining what a judgment contains or whether anything is written, leaving an agent under-informed for a two-mode tool.

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 both `path` and `units` are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of `units` largely repeats the schema text, adding little semantic value beyond the mode-flip it already states. 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?

The description names a resource and action ('near-miss clone judgment'), so an agent can infer it evaluates clone candidates. However, 'T3' is undefined jargon and there is no differentiation from siblings like check_duplication, similar_units, or merge_suggestions, so the purpose stays vague.

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?

It explains the `units` mode ('lists the cached unit universe instead') which is a small usage hint, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling analysis tools (check_duplication, similar_units). Tool-selection guidance is essentially absent.

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