aggregate_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the aggregation behavior, the output components, and adds an important caveat that rates are not gold-standard calibrated and are only as valid as the sample. It does not mention side effects, but the operation appears read-only and an output schema exists.

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter usage, then a caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the front-loaded structure helps an agent quickly understand the tool.

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 covers purpose, both input modes, and the key validity limitation, while the output schema handles return-value details. It leaves minor ambiguity about behavior when both `assessments` and `use_session` are supplied or when neither is supplied, but this is not a major gap.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains both parameters: `assessments` accepts an array of assessment objects, and `use_session=true` switches to aggregating every assessment produced this session. It could be more precise about the required shape of assessment objects, but it provides enough guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Roll up') and resource ('many assessments'), and clearly names the output: per-item completeness rates plus coverage denominators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse, assess, or render individual items rather than aggregate them.

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 gives concrete usage instructions: pass an array via `assessments` or set `use_session=true` to aggregate session-produced assessments. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the two modes are clearly explained.

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