teneo_generate_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope — this is a lightweight, candidate-producing operation that skips the full book pipeline — but says nothing about whether the outline is persisted, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. Partial behavioral context only.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the differentiator clause at the end. Efficient, though arguably too sparse given the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 4-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is produced at a high level but not what a 'candidate outline' contains or how it is returned, leaving the agent to guess about the result.

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 75%, near the high-coverage baseline, so the schema already documents title, description, target_audience, and chapter count. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., constraints on number_of_chapters or how the four inputs shape the outline), so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('an outline candidate for a nonfiction book'), and differentiates itself from the sibling teneo_generate_book by clarifying it works 'without running the full book pipeline.' This gives an agent enough to distinguish it from the full-book generator, though it doesn't contrast with other siblings like teneo_research_niche.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should use this when it wants an outline but not a full book. However, no alternatives are named explicitly and no when-not conditions are given, leaving selection to inference.

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