creative_cross

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses result-quality expectations and an exclusion, but omits operational details such as side effects, determinism with seed/count, required permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage and exclusion criteria. Every sentence contributes without repetition or filler.

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 described. But with no annotations and 8 parameters at 0% schema-description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke all optional parameters confidently.

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 8 parameters. The description only implicitly references the two required concepts and adds no meaning for seed, count, language, constraints, include_trace, or parallel_chains, leaving most parameters undocumented by either schema or description.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: 'Cross two concepts into ideas.' It clearly explains the recombination purpose but does not name or distinguish itself from its siblings creative_generate, creative_expand, or creative_mutate.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Use for non-obvious recombination') and an exclusion ('not a factual reasoning or final-selection tool'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when to choose those over this one.

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