read_poneglyph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool uncovers hidden risks and dependencies, suggesting a read-only analysis. However, it does not confirm no side effects, auth needs, or output behavior beyond the presence of an output schema.

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 extremely concise with two sentences for purpose and then parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema (so return info is covered), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and usage. Minor gaps: no mention of required permissions or best practices, but overall sufficient for a non-complex tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear but concise explanations for both parameters: 'current_plan' as the input to decode, and 'project_type' with examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though default values or formats are not detailed.

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 reveals the 'Void History' of a plan, uncovering hidden risks, dependencies, and assumptions. The verb 'Reveal/Uncovers' is specific, and the resource (plan/code/architecture) is well-defined. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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 says to pass a plan/code/architecture for decoding, implying when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given no sibling tools.

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