generate_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'conservative attribution/CREDITS entry', which hints at a cautious approach, but does not state whether this writes/modifies files, what permissions are needed, whether it is reversible, or what the output format is.

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 entire description is one focused sentence, action-first, with no filler or repetition. It earns every word and immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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?

While purpose and timing are clear, the missing behavioral and parameter information leaves significant gaps. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values, side effects, and parameter usage to be fully actionable.

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 provides no parameter-level details. It references 'a resource' generically without mapping to the actual parameters (name, sourceUrl, license, etc.) or explaining their roles, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear object (attribution/CREDITS entry) and a temporal condition ('after its license has been identified'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search, inspection, and license-checking 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?

The phrase 'after its license has been identified' provides explicit sequencing guidance, implying this tool should be used only after license identification. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing context is clear and useful.

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