aso-to-public

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's multi-step process (loading data, generating prompts, manual next steps), data sources (config.json dataDir), and transformation method (Claude-based conversion). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance characteristics, or authentication needs.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, important usage warning, numbered steps of the process, and clarification about the conversion method. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose - no redundancy or filler content. The critical warning is appropriately front-loaded.

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 (multi-step data transformation with manual follow-up), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about the process, data flow, and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe what happens on tool failure or what the immediate output looks like (though it explains the manual next steps).

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'slug', but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains that slugs must be exact (resolved via search-app), warns against using user input directly, and contextualizes how the slug fits into the file path structure for data loading and output generation.

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 specific action ('converts ASO data') and resource ('from pullData to public/products/[slug]/ structure'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'public-to-aso' (reverse operation) and 'search-app' (slug resolution). It goes beyond the tool name to explain the transformation process.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Always use search-app tool first to resolve the exact slug before calling this tool.' It also specifies when not to use it ('Never pass user input directly as slug') and names the alternative tool ('search-app') for slug resolution.

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