generate_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses legacy status ('Pipeline v3 legacy') and internal coupling process ('coupled motifs + proof gate'). However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or whether the tool is read-only, which would be important for full 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place by including legacy status, output, and alternative guidance.

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?

The description conveys core purpose, legacy status, and alternative, and describes the output (2 variants). However, for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, it lacks parameter explanations and return format details, leaving the agent under-informed on how to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds virtually no parameter information. It mentions 'biais/motifs' but does not map this to any of the 5 parameters (topic, tone, claim, proof_override, user_has_upload).

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 generates 2 variants (hook + image SPEC) coupled via pair_generator. It distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_lead_magnet by specifying it remains for explicit retrieval via bias/motifs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Utilise plutôt generate_lead_magnet' (prefer generate_lead_magnet) and clarifies that this tool remains for explicit retrieval via bias/motifs, providing clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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