opus_test

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 describes a 'generate' action without clarifying whether it is read-only or has side effects (e.g., caching, state changes). It also omits any mention of required permissions or idempotency, leaving the agent uncertain about safe usage.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and add detail. However, it uses jargon ('seed/watered chunks', 'Sonnet/Opus passes') that may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no parameters and no annotations, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks information about the output format despite the existence of an output schema. The mention of 'structured review summary' is vague; the agent might benefit from knowing the summary's key fields.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to explain; the description focuses on the tool's action.

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 that the tool generates a structured review summary for the OpusTest workflow, grouping chunks by type with source URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_queue or submit_chunk. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., all chunks in the workflow).

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 usage in a multi-step workflow ('ready for Sonnet first-pass then Opus final-pass') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like deliver_chunk or mark_reviewed. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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