distil_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (return original text) but does not mention side effects, failure modes (invalid handle), or confirm it is read-only. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what input is needed (handle from distil_compress) and what output to expect (original text). No additional details are necessary.

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 coverage is 100% and describes 'handle' as 'the 8-hex content handle'. The description adds context by linking the handle to distil_compress, adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify format details explicitly but the schema already provides the 8-hex constraint.

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 action: returning original text for a handle from distil_compress. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'original text for a handle', distinguishing it from sibling tools like distil_compress (which does compression) and distil_savings.

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 implies usage: when you have a handle from distil_compress and need the original text. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. The mention 'produced by distil_compress' provides a prerequisite.

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