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 the key behavioral trait that the tool returns an unfilled grid rather than a final analysis. It does not mention side effects, error behavior, or state changes, though as a grid-builder this seems likely to be a read-only operation.

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?

Two economical sentences front-load the core action and outcome. Every sentence earns its place, and the clarifying 'not the analysis' is high-value contrast without extra fluff.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, two well-described enums, and no output schema, the description conveys the essential context: build a tailored grid and return it as a scaffold. It could say more about how the grid should be consumed or validated, but the schema and the explicit 'grid to fill' message make it sufficiently complete for invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including depth and format enums. The description adds the contextual phrase 'adapted to the subject's context' and the notion of returning a fillable grid, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Build) and a concrete resource (hierarchical multidimensional grid with axes and sub-lenses), and clarifies the deliverable by contrasting it with analysis. This distinguishes the tool's purpose even without explicitly naming sibling 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 'adapted to the subject's context' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'Returns the grid to fill, not the analysis' suggests its output is a scaffold for further work. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over multidim_contexts, multidim_validate, or multidim_learn.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and describes the output contents, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, size, or whether the result is a snapshot of the current state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states that the tool takes no inputs and returns all contexts with their axes and sub-lenses. The only minor omission is detail on output formatting or return boundary, but for a simple list tool this is a modest 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and needs to communicate nothing further about parameter behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every known context'), and specifies what the result includes ('axes and sub-lenses'). This clearly separates it from the sibling operations analyze, validate, and learn.

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 does not say when a caller should choose this tool over multidim_analyze, multidim_validate, or multidim_learn. There is no mention of when enumeration is useful, such as before analyzing or validating, and no exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose persistence to a dedicated store and the write-only nature of the tool. However, it does not explain whether 'enrich' overwrites or merges an existing context, whether calls are idempotent, or what failure behavior looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the condition for use, and the persistence side effect. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It defines the tool's role but leaves the meaning of multiple parameters unexplained and says nothing about return values, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call beyond the required context field.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters like axes, keywords, and description, but it does not. It only names 'context' without giving semantics for that required parameter or any of the other top-level fields.

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-resource pair ('Create or enrich a context') and clearly delimits the tool's purpose: promoting a reusable lens rather than analyzing or validating. The phrase 'the only write door' distinguishes it from the sibling tools without needing their schemas.

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 an explicit use condition: only promote a lens reusable beyond the current subject, and only through deliberate promotion, never automatic. It does not name the sibling alternatives for when to use them instead, but the 'only write door' phrasing clearly separates this from the other tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states determinism, statelessness, no store modification, no LLM calls, no judgment of content truth, and actionable error codes per section. This is thorough and leaves little ambiguity about side effects and scope.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes key information: how it works, what it returns, what side effects it avoids, and how the caller should react. It could be structurally broken into bullets, but it is concise and free of filler.

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 the tool's complexity (two nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers purpose, behavior, output shape (verdicts per section), non-modification, non-truth-judging nature, and explicit caller responsibility. An agent has all needed information to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already describes both parameters adequately (frame as v2 frame, analysis as filled analysis), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the frame format and the caller's responsibility, but it does not provide field-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. No extra detail about required or optional properties is added.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('filled analysis against its v2 frame'), and clearly defines the output as ACCEPT/WARNING/REJECT per section. It distinguishes itself from multidim_analyze by referencing its format v2 and from content-judging tools by explicitly saying it never judges truth.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: as a check of a filled analysis against its frame, returning verdicts per section. It also explains the usage loop—only rejected sections are redone, within max_validation_rounds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the contrast with LLM-based analysis and store-modifying operations implies when not to use it.

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