ouroboros_generate_seed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the seed is immutable, generation is gated by ambiguity_score, and force=true bypasses the gate. It does not cover all side effects, but the critical gate behavior and immutability are transparently stated.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output content, and gating condition. No fluff or repetition; it is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the essential behavior and gate. It omits potential error cases or return value details, but this is acceptable as the seed generation step is well-contextualized by the completed interview session and sibling tools.

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% so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between ambiguity_score and force, i.e., the threshold and bypass mechanism, which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions.

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: 'Generate an immutable Seed from a completed interview session.' It specifies the action (generate), the resource (Seed), and the source (completed interview), distinguishing it from siblings like execute_seed which consumes seeds.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after an interview session is complete and when ambiguity is low (<=0.2) or when force=true is passed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable and the condition adds practical guidance.

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