Graduate project

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

Provides thorough behavioral details beyond annotations: explains that pads stay in boards dir (read-only), exclusions (pad files, junk), git behavior with tolerance for absence/failure, and the dry-run default. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and key details. However, it includes some tangential information (e.g., 'CADSolver was the manual prototype') that could be omitted. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 (5 params, destructive, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers the graduation process, exclusions, git handling, dry-run behavior, and pad outcomes. It provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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 80% with descriptions for apply, commit, excludes, targetPath. The description adds value by explaining the overall workflow and how parameters interact (e.g., dry-run when apply=false, git behavior when commit=true). While not detailing individual parameters much, it compensates with process context.

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?

Clearly states the tool graduates an incubator project to a dedicated repo by copying code, repointing codeLocation, setting stage=graduated, and recording the move. The lifecycle 'Option C' and the description of exclusions make the purpose specific and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique graduation action sets it apart.

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?

Describes the dry-run default behavior and how to trigger actual execution (apply:true), guiding the agent on safe usage. It also mentions the lifecycle step ('Option C'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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