Run a capability defined in a POML file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the tool returns a prompt, does not analyze data or write artifacts, and explains a critical difference between POML and Markdown regarding template context. This goes well beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, discovery, context behavior, non-effects, and alternative. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple 2-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it doesn't do, how to find inputs, and when to choose a sibling tool. No critical information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining poml_path as a path discoverable via list_agent_capabilities and poml_context as template context, including the rule that Markdown rejects nonempty context. Both parameters are meaningfully described beyond their raw schema definitions.

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 ('load') and resource ('reusable agent instructions from a POML or Markdown file') and explicitly states the return value ('returns a prompt for the calling agent to follow'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_agent_capabilities for path discovery and run_pipeline as the alternative for executable pipeline configs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Discover paths with list_agent_capabilities' and 'Use run_pipeline for an approved executable pipeline config'. Also gives a clear exclusion—'Loading the prompt does not itself analyze data, execute a pipeline, or write reduction artifacts'—so an agent knows this is not for execution tasks.

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