Living Body — Compose Context

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already provided by annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it says the tool spawns child MCP processes, which implies real execution cost and process orchestration. It also surfaces the explicit-user-intent precondition. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses an em dash for the operational caution. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, annotations cover safety, and the description covers scope, side-effect, and prerequisite, which is enough for basic invocation. The main gap is optional-parameter meaning, particularly privacy_mode and whether sources limits or expands the detected-source set, but these are not required for a default call.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It indirectly clarifies sources by saying 'across all detected sources' and repeats explicit_user_intent, but privacy_mode, response_format, and sources array behavior are not meaningfully explained. This leaves most optional parameters underspecified.

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 names a concrete operation and output contract: it returns the normalized delx-wellness-context/v1 shape merged across all detected sources. This is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like living_body_ask or living_body_daily_brief, but the compose-context purpose is still clear.

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 states the key invocation condition: requires explicit_user_intent: true, and the schema adds that agents must not call speculatively because it spawns child MCP processes. This gives clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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