generate_dialogue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the return value is event commands directly consumable by add_event_commands. However, it does not say whether generation is deterministic, whether it writes to the project or is pure, what happens with invalid mood/large lineCount, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the integration detail second. Nothing to trim and nothing placed after the point where it matters.

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?

For a 6-parameter generative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. It hints at the return shape ('event commands') but not their structure, so an agent must call add_event_commands or inspect the output to know what it receives.

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 83%, so the schema already documents scene, npcName, faceName, faceIndex, and lineCount. The description adds no parameter-level detail and says nothing about the mood enum or the 1-10 lineCount bounds. Baseline 3 applies when the 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Generate NPC dialogue for a scene') with a clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling add_event_commands by naming that tool as the downstream consumer of its output rather than an alternative. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 implies the workflow (its output feeds add_event_commands) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select it over siblings like generate_scenario or create_event, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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