mcp_engram_var_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It states that a new var is minted (except to_linguistic_bundle returns a bundle), which implies creation behavior. However, it does not mention side effects like whether existing vars are modified, authorization needs, error conditions, or rate limits. The behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 very concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It lists operations efficiently. However, the structure could be improved by separating the operation list and output behavior more clearly, but for the length it accomplishes its goal without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 5 operations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return formats (bundle vs. var) in detail, provide parameter dependencies, or error scenarios. The agent would need to guess many details about how to correctly invoke the 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?

The description adds meaning for the 'operation' parameter by listing valid values, and for 'target_name' via schema description. However, schema coverage is only 13%, and the description does not explain 7 out of 8 parameters (e.g., k, min_crs, prefix, seed, vars, source_var). It compensates slightly by clarifying output type per operation, but overall parameter semantics are lacking.

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 it projects/transforms a context var and lists five specific operations (filter_crs, filter_prefix, etc.). It also distinguishes output types: mints a new var unless to_linguistic_bundle which returns a bundle. This provides a specific verb+resource and some distinction from sibling tools like mcp_engram_var_declare, though it could be more explicit about overall scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other var tools or sibling tools). The description lists operations but does not explain selection criteria, prerequisites (like source_var must exist), or when not to use. The agent is left to infer context from operation names alone.

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