writing_assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the mode and output formats, but lacks details like whether it can edit, generate, or has context limits. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Concisely covers parameters and output. Could be more front-loaded with the core purpose instead of repeating the tool name, but overall efficient.

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?

Provides basic information for usage (parameters, output format) but lacks context about what 'writing assistant mode' entails, example use cases, or limitations. Given 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is moderately complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief definition. Descriptions like 'The writing-related query or request' add meaning, but some are generic (e.g., 'optional, uses env config'). Adequate but not detailed.

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 provides writing help and research via Perplexica's writing assistant mode. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on general writing tasks rather than specific source searches.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling tools are search-specific, the description lacks when-not-to-use advice or scenarios.

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