suggest_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields (start_quote, end_quote, etc.) and says it returns exact source text, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool mutates anything or requires special permissions. The word 'suggest' implies non-mutating, but this is not made explicit, so the disclosure is partial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Suggest a card for claim from a fetched source'), then explains the output and next step. No fluff or redundant details; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the workflow, input source, output fields, and how to use the result. It could mention that the source must already be fetched, but that is implied by 'from a fetched source'. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'claim' is the claim to find evidence for, and 'source_id' is the identifier from fetch_source, with a hint about its format (sN / s_…). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about the claim's format or constraints.

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 suggests a card (passage + highlights) for a claim from a fetched source, naming the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing fetch_source as input and cut_card as the downstream consumer, so an agent understands its role in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use it after fetch_source and before cut_card, and it tells the agent to review/adjust before passing to cut_card. This gives clear context for when it fits. It doesn't list exclusions or alternatives like auto_cut, but the workflow is implied well enough.

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