flatten_ocel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exception for unsupported object_type, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if modifications occur, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, composability, exception). No waste.

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 two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the exception and composability context. However, it lacks a definition of 'traditional log handle' and does not explain the parameters' expected values, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds context for object_type by mentioning the exception, but ocel_id is not elaborated upon. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 action: 'Project an OCEL onto a single object type and return a traditional log handle.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on OCEL without flattening.

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 mentions it serves as a 'Phase 2 composability bridge' and the resulting log_id works with Phase 1 tools. This implies it should be used when a traditional log format is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like filter_ocel_object_types which keep the OCEL format.

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