tree_solver

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the sandbox profile (fuel + memory only, no filesystem/network/imports), the ABI contract, that wasm never writes the tree and only proposes, and that only wasm output may become derived tree values. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot get from the schema. It omits the semantics of `remove` (whether it is destructive or gated).

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 content is dense and useful, but a single run-on block mixes registration, medium taxonomy, ABI, input/output shapes, sandbox rules, and read scoping with no structure. The load-bearing call modes are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the ABI/output shape is still spelled out helpfully. But with 7 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, leaving `remove`, `params_doc`, and `description` undefined leaves real gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains name, wasm_b64, medium (with the three enum-like values wasm/web/prose) and reads (branch prefixes wasm may see), but never mentions remove, params_doc, or description. Four of seven parameters are covered, so it only partly fills the gap.

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?

It names the resource precisely (tree artifacts stored by content hash, served from artifact://{sha}) and implicitly gives two verbs: list with no arguments, register with name + wasm_b64. It also distinguishes itself from tree_solve, which runs the artifact. The purpose is clear, but the opening clause 'The tree's artifacts, as data' delays the actual operation.

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?

It gives explicit call modes ('No arguments: list them', 'With name + wasm_b64 ... register one') and points to tree_solve for execution and tree_set for applying proposals. That is genuine when-to-use routing. However, it never covers the removal path even though a `remove` parameter exists.

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