pool_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key trait of making no API calls and operating purely on cached ABA data. It also implies the dependency on cache_aba_pull. It doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing pools or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The core action is stated in one sentence, followed by a clear parameter list and a usage note. Every line adds value, with no redundant or vague 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and usage prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or how the pool is stored, but this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'categories' as comma-separated filter terms with default examples, 'min_search_volume' as minimum 30d search volume, and 'limit' as max pool size. This adds precisely the meaning missing from the schema.

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 opens with 'Build a keyword pool from cached ABA data', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_aba_pull (which pulls data) and cache_query (which queries cache). Additionally, 'No API calls' further differentiates its behavior.

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 explicitly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: Starting a new research session. Must have cache_aba_pull run first.' This provides a clear use case and a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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