mullet_opencode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: the job is gated, the cheapest passing worker is chosen, results are applied to the working tree only after gates pass, and changes are left unstaged and never committed or pushed. The enumerated status values (applied, passed_not_applied, failed, blocked, unverified, timeout) tell the agent exactly how partial success surfaces.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the 'PREFERRED' selection cue, then mechanics, then the return contract. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a mutating, gate-driven tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, safety (no commit/push, unstaged), and the shape of the JSON response including status vocabulary. What is missing is cost/time implications of a full-ladder run and what 'unverified' or 'blocked' should prompt the agent to do next.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the deprecated 'model' and the providers enum. The description adds only the ladder concept that explains why the worker cannot be chosen directly; it gives no extra detail on 'files' scoping or 'cwd' resolution beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('runs the task as a single gated Mullet job' that edits code in the working tree) and explicitly positions itself as 'PREFERRED for code editing tasks'. That framing separates it from the analysis, delegation and search siblings without the agent opening a schema.

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?

'PREFERRED for code editing tasks' is a clear selection directive, and the gating/applied-only-after-pass behavior tells the agent what kind of work belongs here. It stops short of naming the alternatives it beats (mullet_run, mullet_delegate, mullet_swarm), so the agent still has to infer when not to use it.

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