Sentence frames for a section

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are recurring moves grouped by section/purpose, and the output is meant to inform register, not to be copied verbatim. This extra caveat helps the agent set correct expectations about the returned content.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then gives a compact set of examples and a pragmatic warning. Every sentence adds useful context, and the Args note is minimal without being redundant. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enough to convey what kind of output to expect: grouped sentence frames for common literature moves. It also communicates the practical limitation that frames should not be pasted verbatim. It does not enumerate all possible sections or describe the exact formatting, but those are minor gaps for a read-only lookup tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds example values for the section parameter, which is helpful, but mostly repeats what the schema says and does not discuss response_format. This fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opening line says exactly what the tool does: return sentence frames, grouped by section and purpose. The examples of recurring moves further specify the kind of content the agent can expect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lnm_get_guidance or lnm_limitations, which have different outputs.

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 makes clear the tool is for matching the register of the literature and explicitly warns against pasting frames in unedited. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5. The context is nevertheless clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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