Generate a house-style problem

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: generation is deterministic in the seed and the reference solution is executed on this host to compute expected outputs. It does not describe persistence of generated files, but no annotation is contradicted.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and style requirements, followed by execution behavior. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 output schema, full parameter schema descriptions, and annotations, the description covers what is needed to invoke the tool and understand its output: style, determinism, and reference-solution execution. It could note whether generated hidden files persist, but that is minor given the structured fields.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic value by tying determinism to the seed, but it supplies no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('one problem in Repovive's published house style'), and it lists concrete format details that separate it from generic generation siblings like repovive_generate_problem. It is not a tautology and communicates exactly what the tool produces.

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 establishes a clear context: use when a problem must follow the published house style, with t-led multi-tests, braced arrays, and sample packing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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