Run a dense tool

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

Despite the annotation destructiveHint=true, the description makes no mention of potential side effects or modifications to the environment. It only references error handling ('a tool this machine does not have says so'), omitting any disclosure about destructive behavior, which is a significant transparency gap.

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 verbose and meandering, using awkward metaphors like 'a 4,000-line structural search costs a screenful' and redundant phrasing. Its single-paragraph structure lacks clear organization, making it harder to parse the essential information quickly.

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 output format is only vaguely described as 'a distilled view of what it printed', without concrete details on structure or content. It mentions that output is 'reachable through peek' but does not explain the full response shape or error scenarios beyond a cryptic reference to unavailable tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 schema includes two parameters (name and args) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (presumably the tool name among sg/diff/loc) or how 'args' should be structured, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to populate these fields.

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 runs one of three specific tools (sg, diff, loc) and returns a distilled view, which distinguishes it from generic tools. The phrase 'reach for sg instead of reading candidates' and similar clarify the intended use cases, though the description is convoluted and could be more direct.

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 provides guidance for when to use the underlying tools (sg for search, loc for sizing) and mentions distillation of large output. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools like 'run' or state when to prefer this over alternatives, leaving the choice partially implicit.

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