synthesize

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it runs expert analyzers, returns specific factual sections, and raises loudly on token expiration rather than returning empty results, with a clear recovery step. This goes beyond the annotations and improves transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by output details and error handling. Every sentence conveys necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, its key output sections, and the only notable error condition (token expiry). Since an output schema exists, it need not enumerate all return fields, and the summary is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter options, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output given the empty input schema.

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 as a cross-source, context-aware view that runs expert analyzers and aligns findings by skill area. It explicitly notes it does not produce verdicts, distinguishing it from other analysis tools and giving it a specific role.

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 when to use this tool (for cross-source synthesis and contextual analysis) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use'. It does provide a clear recovery instruction for token expiry, which adds usage context.

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