compose_advisory_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the sequence of sub-workflows and that the output is union-ready for dispatch. But it omits details on side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or error handling – important for a composite tool.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it omits parameter explanations, which are necessary for completeness, slightly reducing conciseness value.

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 complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, 3 required), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without referring to sub-tool definitions.

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 does not explain any of the 15 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema, which is inadequate given the high parameter count and nested structure. The description must compensate but does not.

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 is an end-to-end advisory dispatch bundle that orchestrates three specific sub-workflows (compose_squad_workflow, slice_files_for_agent, validate_plan_text) in sequence and returns the union output for parallel dispatch. This specific verb+resource+process distinguishes it from sibling tools that are its individual components.

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 this tool should be used when the full advisory dispatch pipeline is needed, as it bundles the sub-steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over calling the sub-tools individually, leaving room for uncertainty.

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