critique_org_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'flags consulting-language risk and returns a narrative answer,' but does not clarify if it modifies input data or requires special permissions. The mention of a 'rewrite_safely' mode suggests possible mutation, but the description only says it 'chooses' among modes, not that it executes rewrites. This ambiguity reduces transparency.

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 at two sentences, but the first sentence could be more specific about the output. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure; a bullet list of capabilities or examples would improve usability without being overly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the format of the 'narrative answer', how parameters like strictness affect behavior, or what the tool returns. Agents lack critical context for correct invocation.

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 schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings beyond implicitly listing mode choices. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess the purpose of strictness, yearFrom, maxPapers, etc.

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 identifies the tool as a critique layer for rough consulting text, claims, pitch/RFP wording, and research questions. It specifies that it detects intent and chooses among sub-modes, and returns a narrative answer. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like critique_claim or analyze_org_argument, which have overlapping purposes, so it loses some clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it mentions that the tool selects sub-modes automatically, it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when it is appropriate to invoke. With many similar tools available, this omission hinders selection.

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