Generate Operator Artifact

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no destructive behavior. The description adds the context of 'dynamic' and 'decision-ready pulse' but does not disclose specifics like auth requirements, rate limits, or output size. It is consistent with annotations.

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 sentences without waste. The first sentence is somewhat generic but the second provides concrete data sources and output elements. Could be more information-dense but not overly verbose.

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?

With readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description covers the tool's purpose and input. However, without an output schema, the description could have elaborated on the structure of the 'pulse' (e.g., fields, format). Mentioning metrics, evidence, and next actions partially fills this need.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters. 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 clearly states the tool generates operator artifacts from ThumbGate data, producing decision-ready pulses with metrics, evidence, and next actions. This specific verb-resource combination and data sources distinguish it from 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied from the purpose, but the description does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings like dashboard or describe_reliability_entity.

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