konsulto_compose_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'The backend builds the Tiptap body from a layout' and explains how evidence is grafted. It also warns against passing Tiptap JSON. Missing details on return value or error conditions, but overall sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate guidelines. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential aspects: creation, field formats, evidence insertion, template usage. It lacks return value info but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema. It clarifies that fields should be plain prose, stepsToReproduce as array of strings, and that fields is open-ended for template slot names. It also explains the evidence section behavior and the 'auto' walking order. Schema coverage is 50%, but the description compensates fully.

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: 'Create a brand-new finding from structured fields + optional template + optional evidence.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and distinct resource ('finding'), differentiating it from sibling tools like konsulto_update_finding or konsulto_add_evidence_to_finding.

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 formatting rules: 'NEVER pass Tiptap JSON as a field. Use plain prose for summary/impact/remediation, an array of plain strings for stepsToReproduce.' It also explains evidence insertion semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the context implies it.

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