veto_compose_agents

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

While annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies existing agents, what happens on invalid agent names, or side effects. For a creation tool, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence. Every word adds value, achieving maximum brevity without sacrificing specificity.

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?

Despite good schema coverage and annotations, the description is too minimal for a tool that creates an entity. It lacks details about the resulting meta-agent's behavior, how to verify success, or what the output represents. Important context is missing.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add semantic detail beyond schema labels. It briefly mentions 'composing existing agents' but does not clarify the 'workflow' parameter meaning or format.

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 action ('creates'), the resource ('custom meta-agent'), and the method ('composing existing agents into a specialized pipeline'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that deal with single agents or other operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_agent_plan or veto_delegate. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, which is problematic given many sibling tools.

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