compose_brief_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, overwrites existing drafts, or requires prerequisites. The verb 'assemble' suggests a creation action but lacks detail on consequences.

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, concise but overly brief. It could benefit from structure (e.g., listing parameters) without significantly increasing length. It is not wasteful but lacks necessary details.

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 no schema descriptions and an output schema (presumably), the description fails to provide sufficient context. It omits behavior for optional parameters, output format, and differentiation from similar sibling 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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the three parameters. It does not explain what 'cluster_slug', 'outline', or 'max_quotes' represent, which is a critical gap for proper 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 assembles a markdown draft from cluster quotes, overview, and crystal TLDRs. It uses a specific verb and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like 'compose_draft' which likely has different inputs.

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. There are many sibling tools like 'compose_draft' and 'read_briefing', but the description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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