decompose_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key trait: node content is generated by the host agent's LLM, implying the tool only provides a structural template. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether the tool saves anything, what the template format is, whether it modifies session state, or what the expected output looks like. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, only two sentences, and front-loads the core action. However, it is under-specified – it lacks essential context that would justify its brevity. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place by providing sufficient information; it is simply too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the DAG template, how the topic parameter influences it, what session_id is used for, and what the expected return structure is. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without guessing.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description also says nothing about the parameters 'topic' and 'session_id'. It does not explain what topic is for (presumably the subject to decompose), nor what session_id refers to. Without any parameter explanation, the agent cannot know how to populate these fields correctly, making this a critical gap.

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 states a specific action ('Return a DAG template') and a resource, which is more than a tautology. However, it does not clearly connect the action to the tool's name 'decompose_topic' – it fails to explain that this template represents a decomposition of the provided topic. It is not distinguished from any sibling because no sibling is similar, but the purpose remains ambiguous: does it just return an empty template, or does it structure the decomposition?

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this is preferred. The description is entirely silent on usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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