compose_stack

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the alias equivalence, which is useful, but discloses no behavior beyond that – no statement of what is produced, whether anything is persisted, or any constraints. It does not contradict the annotations, so no reduction applies.

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 stage tag and the alias relationship, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and a generate/assemble operation, the description should say what the tool returns (markup, file paths, a composition result). It does not, leaving the agent unable to anticipate output shape, though the schema does cover all inputs.

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 100% and the schema itself documents every parameter richly (alias mapping, defaults, enum values, examples). The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb pair ("assemble" / "hydrate") and named resources ("shell architectures", "pre-configured component stacks into slots"). Critically, it declares itself an alias of basecoat_compose_stack, so an agent can immediately tell it is a duplicate entry point rather than a distinct capability.

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 "[STAGE 3: SYNTAX & STACKS]" tag gives pipeline context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of how this alias differs in usage from basecoat_compose_stack. Usage is only implied by the stage label.

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