propose_decomposition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the proposal is run through verify_decomposition before returning and that names/rationale are deliberately omitted. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though a structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions placeholder keys and raw materials but lacks parameter semantics. The description is adequate for a proposal tool but has gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 3 parameters (snapshot_id, threshold, target_base_count). The description focuses on the overall function but leaves the meaning and usage of parameters entirely to the schema, which is inadequate.

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 proposes a 'thin-base-profile + permission-set decomposition', specifying the verb 'Propose' and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_decomposition and list_profiles by describing its deterministic computation and integration with verification.

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 usage for generating a decomposition proposal, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_decomposition or list_profiles. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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