generate_from_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, failure behavior, or return format. It only promises 'high-fidelity' output, which is not a behavioral trait. The description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 zero filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core function. This is concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal overview. It omits return value expectations, prerequisite steps like uploading a dossier, and behavior when dossier_id is absent. The tool is not fully contextualized.

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 description does not need to explain parameters. It adds an illustrative example (Feyre & Rhysand in Velaris) but no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 'high-fidelity artwork and scenes derived directly from an uploaded dossier,' with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image by making the dossier-based input explicit.

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 phrase 'derived directly from an uploaded dossier' implies the tool should be used when a dossier is available, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The use case is implied rather than directly instructed.

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