build_coding_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that blind mode withholds the instrument's verdict to prevent coder anchoring and that the emitted rows are blank except for intent and boundaries. It does not mention failure behavior when neither `assessments` nor `use_session` is provided, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The output purpose and structure are front-loaded, followed by the critical behavioral caveat and the invocation prerequisite. Every clause adds distinct 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to restate return values. It covers purpose, output shape, the blind mode, and data-source options. The main gap is the absence of explicit behavior when neither `assessments` nor `use_session` is set, and the vague semantics of `use_session`.

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 compensate. It explains `blind` well and indicates that `assessments` and `use_session=true` are alternative data sources, but it does not describe the expected structure of `assessments` entries or what `use_session` actually retrieves, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Emit') and resource ('blank per-paper coding sheets') and explains the exact output structure: one row per applicable leaf with intent, verdict boundaries, and empty verdict/evidence/note fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rendering, parsing, and assessment 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 gives explicit context for the primary reference standard use case ('use blind coding for the primary reference standard') and tells the caller to pass `assessments` or `use_session=true`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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