assemble_brainstorm_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses an 8000-character limit per source and that it returns a string with source labels. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether modifications occur, or potential side effects. It also omits details on error handling or what happens if a source exceeds the limit.

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: three short paragraphs plus an Args section. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. Structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values, but it does mention the return format. However, it lacks information on default time range for 'recent content', total character limit across all sources, and behavior when invalid sources are provided. These gaps make it slightly incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It enumerates allowed values for 'sources' and provides a concrete example for 'date_filters', adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema types. One minor gap: the exact date format interpretation (YYYY-MM-DD) is implied by example but not explicitly stated.

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 a specific verb ('assemble') and resource ('context from multiple sources') with a defined purpose ('for brainstorming'). It lists the exact sources available ('library', 'meetings', 'news', 'ideas', 'journal'), which distinguishes it from other context-related tools like surface_relevant_context or get_context.

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 brainstorming but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context, surface_relevant_context, or get_working_memory. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. The example in date_filters provides some usage context.

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