content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that output is 'rendered Markdown', but does not disclose behaviors such as what happens with mixed/missing identifiers or whether large input sets are supported.

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 that clearly front-loads the action and output. Every part earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 only two parameters, a complete schema, and a clear output statement, this is an adequately described simple tool. It lacks usage guidance for sectionType and does not explain its relationship to skill-content or agent-content, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, including 'One or more kbid or docid identifiers' and 'Partition to scope the operation'. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Compose') and a clear resource ('a rendered Markdown document') plus the inputs (kbid/docid identifiers). It distinguishes itself reasonably from generic read tools like search or retrieve, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieve, recall, or the skill/agent-scoped content variants. The description states what it does but not when the agent should select it.

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