solve_record

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses parsing behavior, inventory creation, API key dependency for auto mode, and the playbook return workflow. Missing details on side effects, error handling, and idempotency.

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?

Description is reasonably concise, containing 5 sentences that cover the main flow without excessive detail. It front-loads the purpose. Could be improved with bullet points for 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the process and key parameters but leaves uncertainty about exact output format (playbook structure) and the overall workflow integration with save_stage. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It explains auto, brief_type, party_side, format_sample adequately, and implies source is the input. However, engine and out_root are not described, leaving some gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool processes case record files/folders through stages, generating step-by-step files. It distinguishes between auto mode (server auto-generates) and non-auto mode (returns playbook for host LLM). However, compared to siblings like solve_case or parse_record, the unique value is not explicitly contrasted.

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?

Description provides guidance on when to use auto=True vs auto=False, and explains behavior for undetermined party_side. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like solve_case or stage_guide, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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