martin_dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description adds value by noting the tool evaluates safety of results and supports multiple output formats. No contradiction 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 succinct sentences with no filler. First sentence states core identity and capability, second gives usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and clear usage context, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation for 4 of 5 parameters, which could hinder correct invocation by the agent.

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 0%, so description should compensate. Only the 'format' parameter is implied by mentioning JSON, Markdown, or GitHub PR formatting. Other parameters (file, loopId, latest, runsDir) are not explained, leaving a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states it is an alias for martin_run_dossier with formatting support, and its purpose to understand what happened after martin_run and assess safety. It distinguishes from sibling martin_run_dossier by adding formatting options, though it doesn't define what a dossier is.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after martin_run, providing concrete context. Does not state when not to use or compare with other sibling tools like martin_get_run, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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