literature.compile_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It elaborates on the deterministic server-side policy: preference order (target, source proxy, drop), role_used tracking, resolution_confidence, and fallback behavior. No contradictions or omissions apparent.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes meaningful detail (purpose, policy, output properties). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 the complexity (6 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the compilation logic well but leaves gaps: input format for claims, exact output structure, and semantics of several parameters. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides little parameter-specific meaning. Only 'claims' is implied by context; other parameters like min_confidence, default_scale_activating, allowed_disease_specificity are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 function: compiling (source,target,sign) triples from literature.extract_claim into InteractionConstraint lists consumed by metabolic.simulate/couple_and_test. It references sibling tools, distinguishing itself as an intermediate compilation step between extraction and simulation.

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 places the tool in a pipeline context: compile after literature.extract_claim, before metabolic.simulate. It details the deterministic policy but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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