generate_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that a dossier is generated and paths are returned. It does not disclose side effects, whether it mutates session state, idempotency, required permissions, or what 'export paths' refer to.

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 a single short sentence that leads with the action and immediately states the return value. There is no filler or redundant restatement of structured fields.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool this might be close, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no naming context for the parameter, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer: what a Session Dossier is, what the name refers to, and what happens to the session.

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 lone parameter 'name' is listed in the schema but the description adds no meaning to it; there is 0% schema coverage. It is not clear whether 'name' is the dossier name, session name, or export prefix, making the parameter under-specified.

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 names a concrete action ('Generate'), a specific resource ('the Session Dossier'), and the expected result ('return the export paths'). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate this from the sibling generate_handoff, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call generate_dossier versus run_session, generate_handoff, or other siblings. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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