dialectic_synthesis

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the tier markers (★, ·, ?), exclusion rules, and conditional behavior when a domain is provided. These details help the agent understand exactly what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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 well-structured and efficient: it starts with the overall purpose, then lists tier markers in a concise format, and ends with the domain parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides sufficient detail about the output format, constraints, and parameter effect. It covers what the agent needs to know to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that if a domain is provided, the output is restricted to that domain without group headers. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 renders accumulated beliefs grouped by domain, with a specific verb 'rendering' and resource 'accumulated beliefs'. It distinguishes itself by mentioning it is used as brief() input and describes the output format, which sets it apart from other dialectic tools.

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 provides clear context: it is used as brief() input, and specifies what it includes/excludes (no low/disputed claims, max 12 lines). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide usage.

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