milton_generate

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it returns a scaffold, not a finished induction; each pattern has a defensive block; guardrail applies unless specific settings; ethics are stated. It is comprehensive and honest about the tool's purpose and limitations.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains some redundant phrasing, but every sentence adds value. Could benefit from bullet points for the pattern structure, but overall it is reasonably concise given the complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return structure (canonical key, family, templates, examples, defensive block). It covers ethics and guardrail conditions. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of output schema, the description is remarkably 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of 'setting' in gating the guardrail, 'patterns' as optional filter, and 'family' as two-tier filter. It goes beyond the schema by tying parameters to the tool's overall function.

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 returns a structured scaffold of Milton-Model patterns. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource (Milton-Model patterns). It distinguishes from sibling 'milton_analyze' by mentioning the shared 'join key', and the defensive block differentiates it from other tools.

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?

The description provides guidance on settings that gate the guardrail (education and self_defense_demo allow recognition-oriented use). It implicitly suggests when to use (when wanting offensive patterns with a shield) and when not to (covert use on non-consenting party is a failure mode). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios compared to siblings.

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