generate_compassGenerate a numbrU Compass profile for a person using the Compass engine. Returns personality insights, communication style, and relationship strategies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dob | No | Date of birth in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional). If not provided, proceed with name only. | |
| name | Yes | Full name of the person | |
| vertical | No | Industry vertical (default: real_estate) | real_estate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it 'returns' data but doesn't clarify if it has side effects, authorization needs, or error handling.
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?
Single sentence front-loads purpose and results. Concise but could include slightly more detail without being verbose.
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?
No output schema and no annotations. Description does not address prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from similar siblings like 'create_person' or 'complete_profile'.
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% and parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no additional parameter semantics.
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 generates a Compass profile for a person and lists what it returns (personality insights, communication style, relationship strategies). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'complete_profile'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (create, retrieve, chat). However, generate_compass overlaps with the automatic compass generation in create_person and batch_create_persons, potentially causing confusion about when to use it separately.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_person, get_chat_messages, update_profile). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
11 tools is appropriate for a client management system with profile, chat, and compass features. The scope is well-defined and each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set supports create, read, and search operations for people, but lacks update and delete functionality. Also, there is no explicit tool to update a client's compass after creation, and chat management is limited to send and retrieve without edit/delete.