generate_review_bundleGenerate a cited professional-review bundle from a completed intake for the Owner to take to a solicitor or CTA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Bundle format. Example: markdown | |
| intake | Yes | Structured Owner facts for Protocol coaching and portal field mapping |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boundary | Yes | Educational / non-advice boundary when the tool includes one |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
All annotations are false, so they provide no safety or side-effect signals, and the description does not compensate. It does not disclose whether the bundle is persisted, whether it involves external requests, how citations are sourced, or what happens if the intake is incomplete. 'Generate' suggests output creation but not the behavioral 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action, names the artifact, states the source state, and identifies the audience. No unnecessary words or repetition of the schema.
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?
The description is complete enough for a basic call, and the rich nested schema and output schema cover inputs and returns. However, it leaves the notion of 'completed intake' undefined and does not clarify how the bundle relates to the surrounding workflow, which matters given the number of sibling tools.
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 100%, and the input schema provides detailed per-field descriptions with examples, so the tool description itself does not need to add parameter detail. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the high-coverage baseline.
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 generating action and a distinct resource ('cited professional-review bundle'), with source ('completed intake') and intended audience ('Owner to take to a solicitor or CTA'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the deliverable is unique enough that an agent can tell it apart from intake, form-filling, and portal 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?
The phrase 'from a completed intake' implies the tool should only be used after intake is done, but this is not stated explicitly. It gives no direct when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer sequencing from the sibling list.
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.
Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.
The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.
At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.