storyline_clarify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the iterative behavior and return types (follow-up questions or a readiness signal), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it address failure modes or rate-limit implications.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant phrases. Every sentence contributes valuable workflow context without excess.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (follow-up questions or readiness signal) and the loop. It also connects to the next step in the process. It stops short of describing the readiness signal format or error handling, but for a simple intake tool it is largely 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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already conveys, such as the default for brandId or the iterative use of userMessage.

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-noun pair ('Run the intake/clarification step' for 'storyline') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the next step (storyline_generate_brief). It is unambiguous about the tool's role in the workflow.

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 instructs to call iteratively until the system has enough context and to then call storyline_generate_brief, providing clear usage context and a follow-up action. However, it does not enumerate when not to use this tool or compare with any direct alternatives.

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