assemble_chunks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the purpose without mentioning any side effects, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., missing manifest), or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; no wasted text.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context: it does not explain what an NM3 file is, what the manifest path should point to, or what the output directory defaults to. Given the sibling tools, more details would help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Based on the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so no deduction.

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 'Assemble chunked output into final NM3 file' clearly states the verb (assemble) and resource (chunked output to NM3 file). It distinguishes well from siblings like transform_to_nm3_chunked, which creates the chunks, and get_chunk_status, which checks progress.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that this should be used after transform_to_nm3_chunked, the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention alternative workflows like using transform_to_nm3 for non-chunked inputs.

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