Distillation worksheet

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the default read-only behavior, the null=true side effect of appending a null-distill attestation, and the explicit guarantee that state.lock is not mutated. It also discloses the refusal behavior for unverified goals. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral caveats and a workflow placement statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, workflow timing, and failure behavior. It explains what the worksheet contains and when null should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance to the null parameter by explaining what appending a null-distill attestation means and that state.lock is not mutated. It also frames the id parameter as a verified goal, which clarifies the expected input context beyond the schema's 'goal id G-NN'.

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 states a specific verb ('Print'), a concrete resource ('distillation worksheet'), and a clear selection condition ('for a verified goal'). It explains what the worksheet reports and ties the tool to the archive workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive, show, and status.

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 explicitly says when to invoke the tool: 'Run this before archive when no Discovery captures the goal.' It also warns that unverified goals are refused with current status, which tells the agent to check verification before calling. This gives a clear routing rule despite not naming many alternatives.

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