compose_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('assemble') but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or whether it interacts with existing drafts. The required cluster_slug hints at context but is not explained.

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 insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and nuanced behavior. Important details are omitted, making it underspecified rather than efficiently brief.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description fails to cover prerequisites, expected inputs, or output details. It does not explain the role of the cluster, how the outline affects the draft, or the meaning of the style parameter. The tool's relationship to other composition tools is unclear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must elaborate on parameters. It only implies 'captured quotes' (mapping to quote_slugs) and 'draft' (output format). The other parameters (cluster_slug, outline, style, include_bibliography) are completely unmentioned, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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 its purpose: assembling captured quotes into a markdown draft. It specifies the resource ('captured quotes') and output format ('markdown draft'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'compose_brief_draft', which could have distinct functionality.

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. For example, 'compose_brief_draft' is listed as a sibling but no distinction is made. Prerequisites (e.g., existence of captured quotes and a cluster) are implied but not stated.

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