Aident AI

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, which is a low bar. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the code attachment is permanent and carries a 60-day deadline. It does not, however, state payout requirements or that terms acceptance is a precondition.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb set and ends with the most consequential constraint. No filler, though it packs four operations into one clause at slight cost to scanability.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-capable tool, the description omits two things an agent would want: that `termsAccepted` must be true and that `context`/`llm_model` are mandatory analytics fields. The action coverage is adequate, but the parameter story is incomplete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters; baseline would be 3. The description earns a bump by tying the `code` parameter to a concrete constraint (must be attached within 60 days) and labeling the attach as permanent, which the schema does not convey for `action`.

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 names a specific resource (the affiliate account) and enumerates the four operations the `action` enum supports: activate, inspect/status, request payout, and redeem code. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like billing or auth, which also touch account-level concerns.

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?

Usage is mostly implied by the action enum; the description adds one real condition (code must be attached within 60 days of signup). It does not say when to prefer activate over status, nor mention prerequisites such as accepting the affiliate terms before activation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces USD cost alongside action calls, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about the mine/team wallet-visibility distinction or rate/volume limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the core capability stated first. It is arguably over-compressed for an 11-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 no output schema and 11 parameters, the description should carry more weight than one sentence. The schema covers most parameters, but the description omits the important scope semantics (team owner seeing shared-wallet usage), the required analytics parameters, and any clarification of the Aident/Loadout naming mismatch.

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 91%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum values for scope and action. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb pair ('Inspect or summarize') and a concrete resource ('recent Loadout action calls and their USD cost'), so an agent knows this is a read/aggregation tool over execution history. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'billing' tool, which plausibly also deals with cost, nor does it reconcile 'Aident' in the title with 'Loadout' in the description.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The words 'recent' and 'inspect or summarize' hint at a usage context, but the description never tells the agent how to choose between this tool and 'billing' for cost questions, or when the summary mode is preferable to the recent mode.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this tool can mutate/destroy state. The description adds little beyond that: it does not say that logout revokes credentials, whether login requires browser interaction, or what status returns. Adequate against the lower annotation-backed bar, but thin.

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 with the core capability front-loaded. The second sentence about refreshing SETUP.md is tangential to invoking this tool and is the only wasted space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally say what 'status' reports and what logout does to the session/token. For a three-parameter auth tool it covers the essentials but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps around the login and logout flows.

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 67%: context and llm_model are fully documented in-schema, but the action enum has no schema description. The description compensates by spelling out the three action meanings ('check status, get login instructions, or log out'), which is real added value for the one undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('Manage Aident MCP authentication') and enumerates the three concrete operations: check status, get login instructions, log out. It is distinguishable from siblings like vault or billing, though the trailing SETUP.md sentence is not a tool operation and slightly dilutes the focus.

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 three actions are mapped to intents (status check, login help, logout), which implies when to pick each, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. Much of this restates the action enum already present in the schema.

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

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: a mandatory quote-then-refund sequence, an explicit confirmation gate before refund, and a prohibition on preflighting credit-consuming work. It does not say which of the eight actions actually mutate state (invoices and balance are clearly reads) or what subscription_cancel/stop_cancel does to the account, so the destructive flag stays under-explained.

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?

Four tight sentences, no filler, and the guardrail against preflighting balance is front-loaded. It loses a point for having no framing sentence, so the reader hits action-specific rules before learning what the tool as a whole is.

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?

For a 10-parameter, 8-action dispatcher with no output schema, the usage sequencing is well covered but key context is missing: no indication of what each action returns, which actions are read-only, or how the portal/subscription flows and surface selection work. Annotations only carry a blanket destructive flag, so the description should do more to partition safe reads from mutations.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by linking parameters across calls: the refundQuoteId must come from a prior refund-quote action and refund requires 'explicit confirmation', which corresponds to the const refundConfirmation. It still says nothing about limit, surface, trialCode, or flow, leaving those to 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?

Each sentence names a concrete action and its resource: balance 'to inspect credits', plans 'to compare live subscriptions', checkout, refund, and the portal/invoices/trial-status group 'manage the existing account'. The tool's overall role as an account billing dispatcher is therefore clear, but there is no opening sentence stating the tool's top-level purpose and no differentiation from siblings such as affiliate or vault.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: 'Use action=balance only when the user asks to inspect credits; do not preflight credit-consuming work' and 'Create checkout only after the user chooses'. It also prescribes ordering for the risky path: 'Use refund-quote before refund, then pass its quote ID with explicit confirmation'.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the acknowledgement handshake, the credit-approval retry protocol, the exact server error (account-selection-required) triggered by an omitted alias when no default exists, and the rule that Skill execution never accepts accountAlias. This is substantive behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with actionable rules, with no filler sentences. It is long, but nearly every clause maps to a distinct execution rule (name fidelity, backends, ack, approval, account routing), so length is largely earned.

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?

For an 8-parameter destructive, open-world executor with a nested input object and no output schema, the description covers the risky flows (acknowledgement, credit approval, account selection) that an agent most needs to invoke it correctly. Return values are not described, but no output schema exists and little return-form detail is required to call it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real routing meaning beyond the schema: it explains that an omitted accountAlias routes through the active default and is only rejected when no default exists, and that acknowledgementScope and approvalToken are meant for a retry of the identical request. These are semantics the schema fields do not spell out.

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 and resource ('Execute a capability by exact name') and immediately distinguishes itself from the retrieval siblings capabilities_search and capabilities_get by framing them as name sources rather than executors. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: call capabilities_get before a side-effecting Action, retry with acknowledgementScope for requires-user-acknowledgement, retry once with approvalToken for credit-approval-required, and when to set accountAlias. Alternatives and prerequisites are named rather than implied.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description is consistent with that profile but adds little behavioral detail beyond it – no mention of whether feedback is queued, acknowledged, or has any side effect visible to the user.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the routing guidance is front-loaded: sentence one sets purpose, sentence two covers targetType=capability, sentence three covers targetType=search. Tight and scannable.

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?

For a 12-parameter submission tool with 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key agent decision (which targetType and what to report). Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though the analytics-only nature of some fields is only conveyed via the schema.

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%, so all 12 parameters are already documented. The description nevertheless adds real meaning by explaining what each targetType value is meant to capture, exceeding the schema's terse enum description.

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 (report feedback) and resource (capability usage or capability search quality), and the two targetType modes make the scope concrete. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling skills_feedback, leaving a similar-sounding tool's relationship unresolved.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for each targetType value: rate a capability after use for performance/reliability/latency/etc., and report irrelevant/incomplete/duplicated/poorly-ranked search results. It stops short of naming alternatives (skills_feedback, loadout_bug_submit) or when-not to use it, so routing against siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about how 'parts' filters the response, what happens when the name does not resolve, or any auth/rate considerations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is wasted. It is arguably terse for a tool whose required analytics parameters need explanation, but it is not bloated and the schema carries the detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, given three sibling capabilities_* tools and a required analytics-oriented parameter set, the description does not explain positioning versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right call.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail, including the canonical-name format, the parts enum, and the analytics-only context/llm_model fields. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (full metadata for a capability), and a scoping condition (by exact canonical name). This distinguishes it loosely from capabilities_search, which returns names, but the description never names that sibling, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the related capabilities_search / capabilities_preflight / capabilities_execute siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. 'call capabilities_search first to obtain the canonical name'). The phrase 'exact canonical name' hints at a constraint but does not route the agent to an alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: it does not execute the Action, it estimates cost, and it surfaces per-Action approval requirements — details an agent needs for a preflight decision. No auth or rate-limit context is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus its non-execution constraint are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and no structured data is redundantly restated.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the three things returned — validation result, credit cost estimate, and approval requirement — which is what an agent needs to interpret the call. It stops short of describing the return shape or what happens on invalid input, but coverage is solid for this tool's 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 100%, so name, input, context, and llm_model are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the framing that 'input' is what gets validated and priced, which is minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb+resource: validate an Action input, estimate its credit cost, and return approval requirements. It explicitly says 'without executing it', which cleanly separates it from the sibling capabilities_execute. An agent can identify this as a dry-run/preflight tool without opening either schema.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this before dynamically priced or metered Actions when the cost depends on input.' The 'without executing it' phrasing implicitly routes execution to capabilities_execute, but no alternative is named explicitly and no when-not case is spelled out (e.g. skip it for free/fixed-cost Actions).

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context the annotations don't: results carry canonical names that must be reused verbatim downstream. It stops short of disclosing pagination or caching behavior, but those are partly reflected in the schema.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The usage constraint is front-loaded ahead of the workflow instruction, so the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 an output schema present and 94% schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or every parameter. It covers the routing decision and downstream usage well; the only minor gap is not mentioning search modes or batch-query behavior, which the schema handles.

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 94%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (mode, limit, types, offset, scope, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search capabilities") and its title clarifies scope (apps and actions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming capabilities_get, capabilities_preflight, and capabilities_execute as downstream consumers of its results.

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 an explicit gating condition ("only when an exact canonical Action name is not already known") plus a concrete workflow: copy the returned canonical name into get/preflight/execute. This tells the agent both when to call it and what to do with the output, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description's only added signal is that the report is "redacted" for triage, and the redaction requirement is already spelled out in the schema's report description. It says nothing about what happens after submission, retention, or the analytics-only nature of the required context/model arguments.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action verb leads and the qualifiers follow. It is efficient, though so compressed that it strains to carry the tool's context.

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?

This is a write tool (readOnlyHint=false) with 5 parameters, three of them required, and no output schema. The description does not indicate what a successful submission yields, whether a confirmation or bug ID is returned, or how the analytics-only context/llm_model fields differ from the report content — gaps the schema alone only partly covers.

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 context and llm_model parameters carry unusually detailed constraints in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Submit a ... bug report") and adds scope qualifiers ("redacted", "for product triage"). No sibling tool in the list (affiliate, audit, billing, capabilities_*, skills_*, vault) overlaps with bug reporting, so explicit sibling differentiation is unnecessary rather than missing.

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?

"for product triage" hints at why the report exists but gives no when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance. An agent gets no help deciding whether a given situation warrants submitting a bug report versus using capabilities_feedback or skills_feedback for user feedback.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, correctly signaling a non-destructive write, and the description's "Send ... to Aident" is consistent with that. The independence-of-rating guidance adds a modest behavioral note, but it discloses nothing about persistence, return behavior, or rate limits beyond what the annotations imply.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and follow with the most important rating caveat; nothing is wasted. The ambiguous "Optionally" opener is the only small blemish.

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?

For a simple single-shot feedback submission with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could note what the submission returns or that the call is terminal, but that is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the rating scale, the context privacy rules, and the skillName pattern. The description's only added semantic is that the rating reflects the outcome rather than in-Skill instructions, which is a minor increment over the schema. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("rate a public text Skill") and scopes it to after-following, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like skills_read and skills_search. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related capabilities_feedback, and the leading word "Optionally" is misleading since rating is a required parameter.

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 a clear timing trigger ("after following it") and a useful instruction to rate independently of in-Skill rating prompts. But it offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent between this and the sibling capabilities_feedback, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed world), so the description's main added value is the returned payload ('full entrypoint and manifest'). It does not describe pagination, size limits, errors on missing revision, or how the optional parts/paths filtering behaves. With strong annotations, a 3 is fair.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read purpose, and the feedback nudge is short. No waste, though the feedback sentence could arguably live in a shared policy rather than this tool.

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?

For a read-only 8-parameter tool with no output schema, it communicates the returned unit and the identity/revision selector. Missing guidance on parts/paths filtering and traversal is the main gap, but overall adequate to call 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 coverage is only 25%, so compensation is expected; description mentions exact canonical identity and optional revision but does not explain the parts/paths/traversal parameters or their constraints. The two best-documented parameters are the analytics ones already covered by schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb (Read) and resource (the full entrypoint and manifest of one Skill), with a precise selection criterion (exact canonical identity plus optional revision). Clearly distinguishes from skills_search (which would list/find) and skills_feedback (which rates).

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?

Implies use after identifying a Skill by canonical identity, and states when to invoke skills_feedback (after completing the task, optionally). No explicit when-not to use or comparison to skills_search, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: results are contextual snippets only and require a follow-up skills_read. It omits pagination behavior (the cursor param) that would help an agent loop correctly.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the critical follow-up constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema the description can legitimately skip return-value detail, and it correctly flags the snippet-only nature of results. But for a 9-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, it leaves pagination, sorting, and tag/category filtering entirely unexplained.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented params (sort, tags, category, cursor, limit, referencedCapabilityNames). It adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, and with low coverage the schema cannot carry the burden alone.

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 (search) and a scoped resource (Aident-curated public text Skills), distinct from skills_read and skills_feedback. It does not, however, contrast itself against other search tools like capabilities_search, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 second sentence describes the workflow: results are snippets, and skills_read must be called to load a full entrypoint. That implies search-then-read usage but gives no explicit condition for choosing this tool over capabilities_search or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not say which action is destructive (disconnect deletes an account per the schema), that connect may return a URL rather than completing inline, or that account replacement requires confirmation. For a destructive three-action tool it adds essentially no behavioral context.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the action list following. No waste, though brevity comes at the cost of substance for a 12-parameter tool.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and destructive behavior, one sentence is not enough. It omits which parameters apply to which action, the credentials-vs-connectUrl flow, and what any action returns.

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 92%, so parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics or action-dependent parameter applicability, which is the only meaningful gap it could have filled.

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 names a specific resource ('Loadout Vault connections') and enumerates the three supported verbs (status, connect, disconnect), matching the action enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation from similarly named siblings such as auth or capabilities.

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 lists the three actions but gives no guidance on when to use which one, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. An agent must infer that 'status' is the default and that 'connect' may involve an OAuth round-trip purely from the schema.

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