gws-richdoc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is deterministic ('DETERMINISTICALLY'), it relies on a fixed generator ('via the fixed generator build.py'), and it mandates using build.py while forbidding hand-authoring HTML. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or reversibility, but for a zero-parameter doc creation tool with an output schema, this is adequate coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core function and determinism, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third delivers a critical implementation rule. It wastes no words, and the slight redundancy between 'DETERMINISTICALLY' and 'ALWAYS run build.py' is acceptable for emphasis.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description provides clear purpose, usage context, and behavioral instructions. It also references the specific document style and the deterministic generator, giving the agent enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of sibling tools like build_rich_doc does not create ambiguity because the description names the specific request triggers.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The input schema is empty, so there is nothing to clarify. The description's focus on output behavior compensates for the lack of parameter discussion.

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 explicitly states 'Create a rich-format Google Doc' with a specific list of formatting elements (banner, color section boxes, navy step badges, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct. It also distinguishes this tool from generic doc tools by referencing 'gws-richdoc / rich-gdoc' and 'polished, visually-structured Google Doc', and notes the deterministic method via build.py.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks for a "gws-richdoc / rich-gdoc" doc or a polished, visually-structured Google Doc.' It also gives a clear process directive: 'ALWAYS run build.py — never hand-author the HTML' and explains the reason ('that is what made every session look different'), effectively steering the agent away from an alternative approach.

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