emit_assignment_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic transparency: it emits a prompt. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, what the prompt contains, or if it is purely read-only. The behavior is implied but not fully detailed.

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 two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides essential context about the multi-phase flow. Every sentence adds unique value.

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?

The description, combined with the 100% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, fully specifies the tool. It covers the tool's role in the workflow and the inputs needed. No missing information for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond noting the phase; the schema already explains 'cluster_slug' and 'subtopics' structure. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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: building the Phase 2 LLM prompt for sub-topic assignment. It specifies the verb ('emit') and resource ('the prompt'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'propose_subtopics' (Phase 1) and 'apply_subtopic_assignments' (Phase 3) by referencing the multi-phase flow.

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?

The description explains the tool's role in the multi-phase topic build flow, indicating it should be used after 'propose_subtopics' and before 'apply_subtopic_assignments'. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative usage, but the flow context is clear.

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