Evidence-backed Review Outline

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it 'organizes' evidence, which is useful, but it does not describe the output structure, retrieval scope, or whether the evidence comes from a specific source. There is no contradiction with 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 a single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action. It is concise and to the point. However, it sacrifices informativeness, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'organize it.' It does not mention the outline format, how `reviewMode` changes behavior, or what 'evidence' refers to. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. It doesn't explain the meaning of `topic`, `top`, `candidates`, or `reviewMode`, leaving the agent to guess from names alone. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specific verbs 'retrieve' and 'organize' and states the purpose 'for focused study or review,' which aligns with the title 'Evidence-backed Review Outline.' It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like rag_query or textbook_qa, though it does not explicitly say it generates an outline.

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 phrase 'for focused study or review' gives some context about when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like chapter_summary or concept_compare. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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