narrative-engine__translate_narrative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the functional purpose and lists enum values for two parameters. It does not mention side effects, destructive potential, rate limits, auth requirements, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The enum lists are efficiently presented. Some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'narrative-engine' scope) could be trimmed, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, nested objects (agent_output), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the agent_output format, the role of key_message and payment_ref, or what the tool returns. An agent would lack enough context to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaning for two parameters (audience_type and format_type) by listing their allowed values. However, it does not explain agent_output (object), key_message, or payment_ref. This is partial documentation; a more complete description would cover all parameters.

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 purpose: translating raw ecological/agent data into a decision-maker-ready narrative. The specific verb 'translate' and resource 'raw ecological/agent data' make it unambiguous. Among sibling tools, no other tool performs narrative generation, so it is well-distinguished.

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 a narrative needs to be generated for decision-makers, but it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Since there are no sibling narrative tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but more context on prerequisites or conditions would be helpful.

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