append_dofile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions deprecation. It does not describe what the tool does, its side effects, permissions, or return values. The reference to 'immutable child run' seems to describe run_prepare, not this 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?

The description is a single sentence and is concise, but it under-specifies the tool. It contains only a deprecation notice and a pointer to another tool, which does not earn its place as a functional description.

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 complexity of the schema (7 parameters, an AnalysisScope type) and the lack of annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It offers no context about the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter semantics whatsoever.

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 does not state what append_dofile does; it only says it is deprecated and directs the user to run_prepare. This is misleading because the tool name suggests appending a do-file, but the description never confirms that behavior.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as deprecated and names run_prepare as the alternative, giving clear guidance not to use this tool. This effectively communicates when not to use it and which sibling to use instead.

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