build_topic_notes

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

The description says it generates files, implying writes, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices critical information. It could be expanded to include parameter explanation and behavioral notes without becoming overly long.

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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the output format or what the generated files contain. The parameter is not described, and the tool's role among siblings is unclear. The description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter and an output schema.

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?

The single parameter 'cluster_slug' is entirely undocumented in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter but does not. The mention of 'paper frontmatter' does not clarify what cluster_slug represents.

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 topic note files from paper frontmatter. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'topics/NN_<slug>.md files' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_topic_notes or write_topic_overview. However, the meaning of 'NN_' is ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_topic_notes or write_topic_overview. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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