stl_rt_wire

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's reference to a 'dump' and 'validate' aligns with these hints, and no contradictory side effects are mentioned.

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 concise and front-loads the primary purpose. However, the 'Args' section is incomplete, which slightly detracts from the structural clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description provides a use case but omits explanations for 'entity' and 'snapshot', and does not mention how a snapshot is sourced, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains two of the four parameters ('depth' and 'max_entities'). The meaning of 'entity' and 'snapshot' is left unspecified, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 dumps raw protobuf wire-format data, including field numbers, wire types, lengths, bytes, and nesting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stl_rt_decode by emphasizing the raw, ground-truth nature and its use for validating a decoder.

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 a concrete use case: 'Point the Kotlin implementation at the same snapshot and compare trees.' It does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, but the stated validation purpose makes when to use it clear enough.

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