creative_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the core concept is preserved and that this is for open-ended ideation rather than lookup or final selection, but it does not disclose operational traits such as non-determinism, the effect of seed/count/parallel_chains, or any permissions or side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage boundaries. Every sentence adds useful selection context without 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?

The description is inadequate for an 8-parameter tool with no annotation or schema-description support. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks the parameter guidance needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the tool has 8 parameters. The description only implies the required 'idea' parameter via 'starting concept'; it says nothing about goal, seed, count, language, constraints, include_trace, or parallel_chains.

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 ('Expand') and resource ('a starting concept') with the intended output types: interpretations, mechanisms, or embodiments. It distinguishes the tool from factual lookup and final-answer selection, but does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like creative_generate 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?

Explicitly says to use it for open-ended ideation and to explore a concept's possibility space without replacing the core concept. It also rules out factual lookup and choosing a final answer. However, it does not route the agent among the sibling creative tools.

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