generate_sow

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

The description adds useful behavioral notes: generation is deterministic and core arguments are optional so missing-input refusals arrive as payloads instead of validation crashes. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or limitations beyond that single validation note.

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 dense and front-loaded: the first sentence states the artifact, the second expands on contents, and the third explains a non-obvious validation behavior. The parenthetical is slightly implementation-heavy but contributes useful context.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs more guidance on what inputs to supply and how missing data is handled. The description defines the output well but leaves the input contract largely implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions output content and 'core arguments' but never explains what unit_id, finish_tier, scope_level, or the other parameters mean or how they influence the generated document.

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 identifies the deliverable: a contractor-ready scope of work with material specifications, quality standards, and general conditions for a unit renovation. It distinguishes itself from the estimate by noting it is generated from the same knowledge base but is the document to hand a bidding contractor, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: use this tool when you need the document to hand a bidding contractor. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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