trw_cross_repo_ordering

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key traits: 'NEVER raises' (no exceptions), 'Tier-gated' (auth restriction), and explains sidecar SHA derivation. Could mention side effects (none) but overall strong transparency for a read operation.

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?

Description is six sentences, each purposeful. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral details. No repetition or fluff. Efficiently uses whitespace.

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 3 optional params, output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It notes that the tool searches repo-default location if sidecar path not given. Minor gaps: no mention of return format or idempotency, but output schema handles return values.

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 has 0% parameter coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions sidecar_path and sidecar_dir options but does not explain repo_root. Also lacks details on parameter types, defaults, or constraints. Only partial guidance on how parameters affect behavior.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the latest c745 CrossRepoOrderingAggregate. The verb 'Return' and specific resource name make the action unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like trw_ordering_compare by focusing on cross-repo aggregate sidecar.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when comparing structural-risk ordering consistency across multiple repositories from a persisted aggregate sidecar.' Also clarifies that sidecar SHA is derived from sorted repo names, not git HEAD. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives listed.

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