assemble_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It details strict property type matching, key matching to title or aliases, v2.0.0 return format (wikilink relation), and that superseded backlinks are not filtered. It also mentions future Phase 4 changes.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. It includes version and future-phase details which, while informative, slightly reduce conciseness. Overall efficient.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (anchor, linked_documents, property_rollups) and notes the wikilink relation in v2. It covers complex behavior comprehensively.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining matching rules (D-03, D-04) and default behavior for vaults. This context aids correct parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: resolving a {type, key} pair to an anchor document and walking backlinks into a structured dossier with specific fields (anchor, linked_documents, property_rollups). It includes strict matching rules and version details, distinguishing it from simple backlink tools like list_backlinks.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_backlinks or compile_brief. It implies usage for comprehensive dossier generation but lacks exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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