build_narrative

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says an index is built. It doesn't disclose whether an existing index is overwritten, what side effects occur, whether project_id/index_dir are needed despite being optional, or what the tool returns.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource, though the brevity does sacrifice behavioral and usage detail that would make it more helpful.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocummented optional parameters, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level action but omits prerequisites, side effects, return information, and the role of the two parameters, leaving the agent to guess operational details.

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 the description does not explain either parameter (index_dir or project_id). The phrase 'from all ingested assets' doesn't map to parameter meaning, so an agent has no help understanding required or optional parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a specific resource ('cross-asset narrative index'), and the scope ('from all ingested assets'). This is clear and distinguishes it from read/search-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as search_index.

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 phrase 'from all ingested assets' implies the tool should be used after assets have been ingested, providing implicit usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like ingest_asset, search_index, or assemble_from_plan, and no exclusions are stated.

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