verbatim_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions producing a 'verbatim answer with exact citations' but fails to specify whether the tool modifies data, requires permissions, or has side effects. The output structure and behavior under error conditions are not described.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose statement, then a summary line, followed by formatted parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema, and the description does not detail the return format beyond 'verbatim answer with exact citations'. Given the complexity of the output (likely structured with citations), this omission leaves gaps. However, it adequately covers input semantics.

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 description adds significant value beyond the bare input schema. It explains that 'question' is the query to answer, and 'context' is a list of documents with required 'content' and optional 'title', 'source', and 'metadata'. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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's purpose: transforming a question and context documents into a verbatim answer with exact citations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_rag (semantic search) and get_citation (retrieval), indicating a unique function.

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 explains that the tool is 'collection-agnostic' and works with any text, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond implicit differentiation from sibling tool names.

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