gather_bundle

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: no answer synthesis, default ranker, fallback to lexical_v1, source quality remaining null, and diagnostic action. It also explains parameter bounds and defaults. This provides complete behavioral context.

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 concise: a single-line summary, a compact behavior paragraph, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, then details.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema), the description covers essential context like return type (SourceBundle), lack of synthesis, and diagnostic guidance. It does not explain what a 'keyless SourceBundle' is or how diagnostics work, which could be clarified, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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%, but the description compensates fully. Each of the 5 parameters is described with purpose, default values, and bounds (e.g., 'max_sources' bounded to 1-20, 'ranker' options explained). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 returns a 'structured, keyless SourceBundle without synthesizing an answer,' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from 'gather_sources' by being 'programmatic' and 'keyless,' and from siblings like 'quick_search' by emphasizing structured evidence identifiers and provenance.

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 states the tool is 'intended for agents and pipelines that need stable evidence identifiers and retrieval provenance,' and instructs to follow 'diagnostics.recommended_action' and that only 'synthesize' permits synthesis. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this versus sibling tools like 'gather_sources' or 'quick_search,' leaving some ambiguity.

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