reason

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without describing side effects, output, or read/write nature. It doesn't even clarify whether this is a retrieval or computation operation.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler, though the phrase 'Reasoning recall' is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Still, it's well-structured and 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 description lacks essential context about what a 'premise pack' is, what the output looks like, and how top_k influences results. For a two-parameter tool with a likely complex reasoning task, this is insufficient.

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 schema has two parameters with zero description coverage. The description hints that 'query' should be a math/compare/transitive question, adding some context, but 'top_k' is completely unaddressed. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but only does minimally.

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 uses the verb 'assemble' with the resource 'premise pack' and scopes it to 'math / compare / transitive question,' giving a clear action and domain. It distinguishes from generic recall tools by specifying the reasoning context, though 'premise pack' is not fully defined.

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?

It implies usage for math, compare, or transitive questions, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'recall' or 'reasoning_trace,' leaving differentiation incomplete.

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