Start Combine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Launch' but does not disclose whether this is async and returns a job handle (siblings like get_job_status/list_jobs/cancel_job hint at a job model), whether it overwrites an existing output directory, or what permissions/inputs must already exist. For a launch/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information. It is efficient, though so terse that the omitted context is conspicuous.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), this is a pipeline-launching mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation. The description omits prerequisites, job semantics, and parameter expectations, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently from the definition alone.

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% and both parameters (embeddings_source, output_path) are undocumented in the schema. The description only loosely implies them ('per-region embedding CSVs' for embeddings_source, 'output directory' for output_path); it never states expected path formats, whether embeddings_source is a directory or list, or that output_path must be writable.

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?

States a specific verb+resource action (launch the Stage 5 combine) and the concrete effect (collecting per-region embedding CSVs into one output directory). This differentiates it from start_embeddings or start_morphologist, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Stage 5' label implies this runs after the embeddings stage, which is useful sequencing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., all regions must have completed embeddings), and no routing to alternatives such as start_embeddings or a full start_pipeline.

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