Build a Source-Grounded Discussion Guide

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is attributed/source-linked and limited to one to five entries, but it does not state whether the tool returns a generated artifact, persists anything, or requires special permissions, nor does it detail the output structure beyond 'scaffold'. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and deliverable, then states the input scope. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so a short description is acceptable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should more explicitly describe the returned guide's structure or any side effects to be fully self-sufficient; as written it is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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%: ids and context are already described in the input schema. The description reinforces that ids are one to five selected entries and indicates that source-linked questions and values are used, but it adds no essential parameter semantics beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('assemble') and names a concrete deliverable ('attributed class, book-club, or community discussion scaffold') built from one to five entries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_entries, get_entry, or compare_entries, which perform lookups or comparisons rather than constructing a guide.

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?

It gives context for when to use the tool (creating discussions for classes, book clubs, or communities) and implies a prior selection of one to five entries, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or names an alternative. The usage context is clear enough to infer intent, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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