gp_critique_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the use of Gemini API and the scope of the audit. However, it does not specify read-only behavior, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, clear and efficient. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema provided, yet the description fails to hint at the return value (e.g., audit report, flags). For a tool with a nested object and three parameters, the description is too brief to cover all necessary context beyond the purpose.

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%, setting baseline at 3. The description adds context about what the tool does with parameters (e.g., audting draft, using researchTime) but does not explain parameter specifics beyond the schema. Minimal added value.

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 verb 'Audits' and the resource 'cold email draft', specifying three audit aspects: placeholder flags, styling, and factual accuracy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gp_generate_email_draft and gp_revise_draft.

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 or when not to use. It implies use after drafting but does not compare with siblings or mention prerequisites. Minimal usage direction.

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