spawn_savi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intent (leaving context) but omits mechanics such as whether prior context is overwritten, how Savi accesses it, or any side effects. The metaphor 'leave background context' lacks operational detail needed for an agent to understand the mutation's consequences.

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 that front-loads the verb and target, making it efficiently sized. However, the poetic phrasing ('fight over the world') is less precise than a straightforward operational statement, slightly reducing 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?

Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out important context such as prerequisites (e.g., an active game project), success/failure behavior, and how this tool fits into the broader gameplay workflow. An agent would not know exactly when or how to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters fully described in the schema (including an example for 'message' and a default for 'projectDir'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('leave background context') directed at a distinct entity (Savi), and frames it with a clear use case ('after meaningful pushes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_push, which push changes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear timing guidance ('after meaningful pushes') and explains the intended outcome ('so you don't fight over the world'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of when to use it is evident.

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