prepare_paideia_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'compose' but does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, has side effects, or what constitutes a successful composition. Behavioral traits are largely absent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured breakdown could improve clarity for complex parameters.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the tool's return value, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., whether PAIDEIA must be installed). The context signals indicate moderate complexity, but the description fails to address completeness.

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 60%, with 'action', 'project_root', 'repo_root', and 'include_instruction' described in the schema. The description adds that the tool composes 'original PAIDEIA instruction, current workspace context, and output contract', which loosely connects to 'action' and 'project_root', but does not add detailed semantics for each parameter. The 'args' parameter lacks any description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and identifies three resources (PAIDEIA instruction, workspace context, output contract) that define the tool's output. It clearly indicates the tool prepares something for an Alt local model, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'alt_workflow_guide' or 'course_phase'.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use conditions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual instruction for the AI agent.

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