fde_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this tool produces a 'draft' and only handles workflow generation, which implies a non-destructive, non-final output. However, it does not explicitly state whether anything is persisted, what side effects exist, or what the response will contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that carries the critical routing information. Every phrase earns its place, though it relies on domain jargon like '五要素' and '六引擎'.

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 description gives enough to understand the tool's role in the FDE pipeline and to route ontology work elsewhere, but it leaves gaps: the five elements are not specified, the output shape is not described, and there is no mention of side effects or session constraints beyond the schema. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'five elements' framing and the workflow/ontology routing, but it does not define the five elements or add detail beyond what the schema already says about the action enum and session object. It adds some context but does not substantially enrich parameter 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: it generates a workflow.yml draft from 'five elements' and explicitly scopes itself to workflow-only. It also names fde_derive as the entry point for ontology derivation, distinguishing this tool from a close sibling.

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 explicitly says this tool is workflow-only and that ontology derivation should go through fde_derive, giving the agent a direct when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule. This is exactly the kind of alternative routing that helps an agent choose the right sibling.

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