dual_iterate

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the internal iterative process, use of dual backends, and that only final approved code is returned. However, specific behaviors like token consumption details or failure modes are not mentioned.

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 three sentences, with a clear headline and efficient explanation of the process and benefits. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains the overall flow and return value (final approved code). It is mostly complete for a tool of moderate complexity, though output structure details are lacking.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the iterative context but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: generating code through an internal iterative loop using dual backends. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_file or review by emphasizing the dual iterative process and token savings.

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 implies usage for complex generation tasks and token savings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_file or review. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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