compose_brief_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only or destructive. For a tool that likely creates a draft, this is insufficient.

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 but lacks necessary structure. While front-loaded with the core action, it omits critical details that would fit in a slightly longer description.

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's complexity (assembling draft from multiple sources) and the presence of an output schema and siblings like 'compose_draft', the description is too terse. It fails to explain how parameters affect output or when to prefer this over similar tools.

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 input schema has three parameters (cluster_slug, outline, max_quotes) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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's purpose: assembling a markdown draft from specific sources (cluster quotes, overview, crystal TLDRs). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'compose_draft'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'compose_draft' or other drafting tools. The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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