synthesize_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately discloses caching behavior, how to regenerate via force_refresh, and the output structure. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is read-only, how stale cached results may be, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three compact, purposeful sentences. The primary action comes first, the output content is stated in the second sentence, and the caching/refresh behavior is cleanly tucked into the third. No filler or duplicated schema content.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly names the core return elements: threads, row-level citations, contradictions, and gaps. It also covers caching and refresh behavior. It could say a little more about the thread structure itself, but the essentials for selecting and calling the tool are present.

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 schema only documents topic ('slug or free text') and leaves force_refresh without a description. The tool description compensates by explaining force_refresh: 'pass force_refresh: true to regenerate.' This adds useful semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, and topic's semantics are already reasonably covered by 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?

States a specific verb ('synthesize'), a clear resource (the user's wiki collectively), and a distinguishable deliverable: structured threads with row-level citations, contradictions, and gaps. This naturally contrasts with sibling tools like search_wiki or read_wiki_page, making the purpose obvious.

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 when to use it: when collective synthesis, not simple retrieval or search, is desired. It also gives a concrete usage tip for force_refresh. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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