build_hitl_confirmation_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or what 'build' entails (e.g., does it mutate state, require authentication). 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?

The single sentence is concise but bare. It could be restructured or expanded slightly to include parameter hints or usage context without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format, parameter details, or workflow integration, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, but the description adds no explanation for either parameter (procedure_stage_signal, atomic_items). It does not clarify what these objects represent or how they relate to the output client_questions.

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 tool builds client_questions for low-confidence procedure stages and manual-review correction items. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context hints at its place in the workflow, though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like apply_hitl_confirmations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_hitl_confirmations). The description only implies the context but does not provide explicit usage conditions or when not to use it.

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