dialectic_synthesis

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

Without annotations, the description provides extensive behavioral details: max 12 lines, exclusion of low/disputed claims, non-active states, tier markers with definitions, and domain filter behavior. No contradictions.

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 purpose, followed by concise details on filtering, output limits, tier markers, and domain behavior. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, filtering rules, output format, and domain behavior. It is complete for correct usage.

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?

The single parameter 'domain' is well explained: it restricts output to that domain and omits group headers. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 it renders accumulated beliefs about the user, grouped by domain, with specific filtering criteria and output format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'brief' by stating it is used as input to brief.

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 implies use for generating concise belief summaries but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it compare to alternatives like 'brief' or 'dialectic_claim'.

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