distill_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input format (JSON array or raw text) and the extraction of specific elements, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or modifies data. For a transformation tool, it provides moderate transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the main purpose, input type, output components, and constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing components).

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input type and output components but lacks details on parameter options (format, focus), error handling, or output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description should compensate. It mentions the conversation input, format default 'structured', token_budget default 1000, and focus default 'all', but does not explain what 'format' or 'focus' mean or how they affect output. The description adds overall purpose but leaves parameter semantics vague.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'conversational message trace', specifies the output components (goals, decisions, errors, current state, pending tasks), and mentions the token budget constraint. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like distill_json and distill_logs by focusing on conversational data.

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 implies usage for conversation data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like distill_json for JSON or distill_logs for log data. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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