twining_assemble

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the briefing may be truncated when token_estimate ≈ max_tokens, explains the meaning of decisions_count, and clarifies that the briefing content is not a scope census. These are important behavioral traits that help the agent interpret the output correctly.

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 somewhat wordy but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, truncation behavior, and clarification of a field. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (when to call). The structure could be tighter, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explains the return value (briefing with decisions, warnings, handoff context) and mentions key fields like token_estimate and decisions_count. It also provides context on truncation and alternatives, making it reasonably complete. However, it does not fully specify the exact structure of the briefing, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (task, scope, agent_id, max_tokens) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters; it only references max_tokens in the context of truncation, which does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: returning a briefing with decisions, warnings, and handoff context. It also specifies when to call it ('FIRST call every session'), which distinguishes it from other tools. However, the purpose is slightly buried under additional behavioral notes, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

Explicit usage instructions are provided: 'Call BEFORE reading code or making changes' and 'Your FIRST call every session.' It also mentions an alternative tool ('use twining_why total_in_scope for populations'), making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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