create_framework

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It only mentions the return value and arguments, omitting important behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The docstring format clearly separates parameter explanations. However, mentioning 'ctx' (not in input schema) slightly distracts from 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 of the 'schema' object parameter, the description provides minimal structure guidance. The return type (framework ID) is noted, but constraints on schema content are missing, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter documentation adds essential meaning: 'schema: The framework schema' and 'name: Optional name for the file.' This compensates for the bare schema, though 'schema' could be further 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 states 'Create a new workflow framework,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like start_workflow or list_workflows, lacking context for when to use this specific tool.

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 is provided on when to use create_framework versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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