emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't reveal whether rebuilding overwrites an existing contact sheet, requires specific emulator state (running, state loaded), what happens if pair_summary.json is missing or malformed, or whether this is a read-only operation. The word 'rebuild' implies some mutation, but side effects are undocumented.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the main action and object. For a tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 there's no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should be more thorough. The tool takes a file path and rebuilds something with side effects, but doesn't describe the output, error conditions, or dependencies on other emulator operations. For a tool that reads and writes files, this is notably incomplete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the single parameter pair_summary_path. The description mentions 'existing pair_summary.json' which partially aligns with the parameter name, but doesn't specify path format, required file location, or expected file structure. The parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory, providing some baseline meaning.

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+resource ('Rebuild a pair contact sheet from an existing pair_summary.json'), which clarifies the tool's core operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling emulator_build_pair_diffs or explain what a 'pair contact sheet' is or what it's used for. The purpose is understandable for someone familiar with the domain but lacks explanatory depth.

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 implies usage (rebuilding when you have a pair_summary.json) but provides no mention of when this is preferable to alternatives like emulator_build_pair_diffs. There's no guidance on prerequisites, ordering relative to other emulator build tools, or when rebuilding is necessary versus initial creation.

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