Generate a literature-review outline

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

With no annotations the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the output structure and the optional write side effect ('write outline.md next to the notebook'). It omits whether an existing outline.md is overwritten, whether the write requires permissions, and any size or rate constraints.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates the artifact contents in a scannable order. No filler, though the optional-filter/write clause is packed into the same sentence rather than separated.

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, yet the description explains what the returned scaffold contains, which is exactly what is needed. For a zero-required-parameter, read-plus-optional-write tool it is nearly complete; only the 'title' parameter and overwrite behavior are unaddressed.

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 only 33% ('write' has a description). The description compensates for 'tag' (filter) and 'write', adding scenario-level meaning, but gives no hint about 'title', which is undocumented everywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('Assemble ... into a Markdown literature-review scaffold') plus resource and a detailed enumeration of what the artifact contains (theme grouping, cite keys, References, not-yet-written-up list). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_markdown or list_notes.

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 scenario is implied — turn existing notes into a review outline — but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named even though export_markdown and notebook_stats sit in the same space and could plausibly be confused with it.

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