Generate Rag Answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the anti-hallucination framing and that passages are the sole context, but it fails to clarify whether retrieval happens internally (params like alpha, top_k, source suggest it does) despite claiming to use 'reranked passages'. Key behavioral facts such as this are left implicit.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though not especially rich.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the helper's role is conveyed. But with 7 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool this configurable.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Reranked' vaguely gestures at the ranking parameters (alpha, top_k) but none of source, text_filter, metadata_filter, or context_limit_chars are explained.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Build a RAG prompt using the reranked passages') and specifies the output ('a cited context and a ready-to-send prompt'). This lets an agent distinguish it from retrieval siblings like search. However, the name says 'generate_rag_answer' while the description says it only builds a prompt, a minor mismatch, and no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

It hints that the tool consumes 'reranked passages' as the only context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no statement on how it relates to the search siblings or when an agent should reach for it versus plain search.

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