team_crystallize

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 key behavioral traits: the minimum author convergence (2+), the condition for crystallization (cross-person signal), and the non-destructive nature (surface in view). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or write-heavy, nor potential side effects beyond creation. Still, the depth of behavioral explanation exceeds typical tools.

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 a single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently uses examples and contrasts. Slightly busy but every sentence adds meaning; could be split into list or distinct sections for even better scannability, but remains concise given the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description provides a concrete example of the output format. It covers preconditions, uniqueness criteria, and output surface. The high complexity and 3-param schema are well-addressed. Lacking an explicit list of return fields or edge cases, but the example compensates. A slightly richer return description would push to 5.

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 each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description echoes the schema's info on 'label' auto-generation and 'min_authors' defaults but does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Create') and the resource ('Team Crystal'), explicitly differentiating from the sibling 'memory_crystalize' by describing the cross-author convergence requirement. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct among 80+ sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (for cross-person pattern detection) and when not to (vs memory_crystalize for individual compression). It specifies prerequisites: 'Needs attributed lessons (learn_from_attempts(author=...) / team_learn)' and mentions where results surface ('crystal_view'), providing clear context for appropriate invocation.

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