build_document_vocabulary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'creates' something, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are needed, if it modifies the document, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisite information and parameter/return details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It explains the parameter and mentions a return value ('Vocabulary build result'), but lacks details on what the vocabulary entails (e.g., token types, format) or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context.

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 description adds meaning for the single parameter: 'document_id: ID of the document to build vocabulary from.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates adequately for the one parameter, but doesn't provide additional details like format constraints or examples.

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: 'Build closed vocabulary from document' and 'Creates lexicon of all tokens.' It specifies the verb ('build'), resource ('vocabulary'), and source ('document'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_output_vocabulary' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite.

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 usage context: 'Required before using validate_output_vocabulary.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (as a prerequisite). However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives among other siblings like 'list_documents' or 'ingest_document' for related operations.

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