Naming convention (suggest / parse)

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

The description calls the tool a pure function, which adds determinism/no-side-effect context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses useful behaviors: stable slugs, facet-tag generation, resource kinds omitting the kind word, source markers with a 'live' default, and conformance grading. No contradiction with the 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 dense but front-loaded with the core convention and both actions. Every sentence earns its place, and the long enumerations are necessary because the schema does not provide them.

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?

For a two-mode tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: required fields per action, all allowed vocabularies, source default behavior, and what each mode returns at a conceptual level. The exact parse grading rubric is not needed for selection or invocation.

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?

The schema covers parameter names, but the description supplies the full controlled vocabularies it omits: scope code mappings, the complete kind list, source facets, and the conditional omission rule for resource kinds. It also clarifies requiredness per action, which goes meaningfully beyond the input schema.

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 states the exact function: the `SCOPE · Kind Subject` naming convention as a pure function, with suggest generating a display name, slug, and tags, and parse decomposing and grading a name. It clearly distinguishes the two modes and is unlike any of the resource/config sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to prefer suggest over hand-naming and explains why: consistency of derived slugs and tags. It also makes the parse mode's purpose obvious for existing display names, so an agent can select the right action without guessing.

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