get_caption_framework

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output structure ('structure, when to use, and the rule') but does not mention any behavioral traits like idempotency, authorization needs, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and ends with a clear usage instruction.

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 simplicity (1 optional enum param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the output content and how to get all frameworks, but does not specify return format or other details that might be needed for full completeness.

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 add meaning to the parameter. It lists the enum values and explains what each framework provides (structure, when to use, rule). However, it does not detail the differences between the frameworks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it returns 'Caption structures by goal' and lists the specific frameworks available (hook_expand_cta, story, list, question_seed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_full_pack or get_engagement_playbook.

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 provides one usage guideline: 'Omit for all' (i.e., omit the parameter to get all frameworks). However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_full_pack, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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