propose_subtopics

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose whether the tool creates side effects (e.g., storing the prompt) or is read-only. The agent cannot infer safety or persistence from the description alone.

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, but it sacrifices crucial details for brevity. It does not fulfill the need to differentiate among 70+ sibling tools or explain parameters.

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 omits essential context like the relationship to subtopics, the role of the parameters, and how the prompt will be used. For a tool with many similar siblings, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('cluster_slug' or 'target_count'). The agent must guess their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as 'Phase 1 sub-topic proposal prompt', with a clear consumer ('for an AI to consume'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'propose_research_setup' but could be more explicit about the prompt's content or purpose.

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 such as 'suggest_cluster_split' or 'plan_research_workflow'. The description lacks context about the phase in a workflow or prerequisites.

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