request_synthesis_step_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Shows prompts and questions' (indicating an informational/read-only nature) and imposes a sequencing rule. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, whether it modifies state, or what exactly the returned guidance looks like beyond 'prompts and questions.' This is a partial but not complete disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value (purpose + content + sequencing). No filler or unnecessary details; it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with a rich enum and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and a critical prerequisite. It could add more detail about return format or prerequisites (e.g., that an analysis must already exist), but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, including an enum for 'step.' The description adds no extra semantic value for parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('detailed guidance for a specific synthesis step'). It also names the direct sibling 'complete_synthesis_step' to differentiate the tool's role, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear and explicit usage constraint: 'Must be called BEFORE complete_synthesis_step for that step.' This gives a specific 'when' and identifies the adjacent tool. However, it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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