create_context_receipt

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

The description discloses that the tool does not call an LLM and details what the receipt records. However, with no annotations, it omits behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., file writing), required permissions, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the main action. It uses clear language and bullet-like formatting for documents_json. Minor improvements could include a more structured listing of parameters.

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 6 parameters and several siblings, the description misses key context: it does not explain the query parameter, token parameters, or how this tool differs from create_context_receipt_from_path beyond input method. The output schema existence lessens the need for return value details, but parameter gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly explains documents_json and recoverable, but fails to cover query, chunk_tokens, token_budget, and overlap_tokens, leaving 4 of 6 parameters undefined.

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 creates a Context Receipt from supplied documents, distinguishing it from similar siblings like create_context_receipt_from_path. It also explicitly notes it does not call an LLM, clarifying its non-AI nature.

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 by focusing on supplied documents, contrasting with path-based sibling. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not directly address alternatives beyond the recoverable option.

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