assemble_brainstorm_context

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

Discloses the 8000 char limit per source and that output includes source labels. However, it does not mention truncation behavior, ordering, or freshness of content. No annotations exist to supplement, so the description provides moderate transparency.

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 mostly concise, with three short paragraphs. The Args section repeats some information but overall structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Despite moderate complexity and having an output schema, the description covers core functionality, constraints, and parameters. It is sufficient for basic usage, though edge cases are missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it lists valid source values and explains the date_filters with an example. Both parameters are well-addressed.

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 it assembles context from multiple sources for brainstorming, listing specific source types. This is a clear verb+resource pairing, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_context' or 'surface_relevant_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple context-retrieval tools among siblings, but the description provides no context for selection.

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