elenchus_generate_roles

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the multi-step behavioral process, including dependencies between steps and that each step returns a prompt for an LLM. It could mention side effects or statefulness, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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, fitting the key information in a single paragraph with numbered steps. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details the process, though a bulleted list could improve readability slightly.

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 adequately explains that each step returns a prompt to send to an LLM, and it mentions the final call to set_dynamic_roles. The process is fully covered, but more details on return formats could improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the step enum order and the role of previousResult as the JSON result from the prior step, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 generates customized Verifier/Critic role prompts based on user requirements. It outlines the three-step process and distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the sequential steps and the final call to elenchus_set_dynamic_roles.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and the exact sequence of steps (detect_domain → generate_verifier → generate_critic). It also tells the user to call elenchus_set_dynamic_roles after all three steps, offering clear usage context.

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