aura_inspo_recommend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the strict macro gate, the need_macro:true failure shape, the fact that it performs no fetch, and the returned payload (inspo_call + 3 aura_calls + palette priority). It does not cover permissions, error modes, or determinism, but for a pure mapping tool this is substantial disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the gating constraint is front-loaded before the success-path return shape. The telegraphic style borders on cryptic but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return structure and gating behavior an agent needs to invoke this correctly, which is the main completeness risk here. Residual gaps are the unexplained mode/vibe inputs and the exact identity of the tool to call first.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains macrostructure's gating role and implies brand_hex through the 'brand > Inspo > Aura' palette priority. However, 'mode' and 'vibe' are never mentioned, and brief's expected content is only implied, leaving roughly half the parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and output ('Map a brief onto Inspo + Aura calls') and clarifies scope with '(pure, no fetch)', which separates it from network/fetch siblings. It is dense with internal jargon (Inspo, Aura calls, macrostructure) that a newcomer may not resolve, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and a when-not rule: without macrostructure it returns need_macro:true and the agent must 'run inspo.recommend first, never scaffold generic.' That is real routing guidance, though the named 'inspo.recommend' does not exactly match any sibling tool name, leaving slight ambiguity about which tool to chain.

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