cos_compose_chain

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal decision strategy ('situation override > preset match > per-role scoring composer > hard fallback') and states the return type with provenance fields (preset_id, preset_version, effective_threshold, activations). This adds meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not mention side effects, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 and every word adds value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides the strategy and output details. No redundant or filler content exists, making it efficient and well-front-loaded.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and a schema with zero descriptions. The description gives a high-level overview and mentions the return type (with an output schema available), but it omits critical input details and usage prerequisites. It is not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the meaning or structure of signals_json, nor how session_id, situation_id, or preset_min_score map to the strategy. It only vaguely references concepts like 'situation override' and 'preset match' without tying them to specific parameters. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, parameter semantics are weak.

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 what the tool does: 'Compose an ordered formula-role chain from TaskSignals.' It uses a specific verb ('compose') and a specific resource ('formula-role chain from TaskSignals'), and the strategy details further clarify the behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about tasks, graphs, or learning rather than chain composition.

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 when to use this tool by explaining the composition strategy and the output provenance, but it does not explicitly state usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like cos_dispatch_formula_run. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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