Jason Lovell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the non-obvious workflow insight that nothing is transmitted and the agent must pass the route onward itself, which goes beyond the safety hints rather than merely restating them.

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 what the tool returns and followed immediately by the behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it only gestures at it ("ways to reach Jason, by purpose") without saying what a route comprises. Given the tool's simplicity, everything else an agent needs is present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 the resource and its organizing principle plainly: contact routes for reaching Jason, grouped by purpose. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_build, list_studies, search_site, etc.), though it never uses an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', leaving the action implicit.

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 sends nothing: pass the route to the person you act for" is genuine usage guidance — it tells the agent this tool is a lookup step whose output must be relayed, not a communication action. It doesn't compare against any alternative, but no sibling offers contact data, so the gap is minor.

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, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the returned content, including design-record fields ('the question it answers, the design choice and where it stops'), which is meaningful given there is no output 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource ('One build'). It is compact, though the trailing clause is elliptical enough to read as slightly cryptic rather than crisp.

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 single-resource read with full annotation coverage, complete schema, and a description sketching return content, an agent has what it needs to call the tool. Only the absence of any routing to sibling tools like list_builds 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% with a single enum-constrained 'slug' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb (read 'one build') and resource, and distinguishes single-fetch from the sibling list_builds implicitly via 'One build'. The phrasing 'what it is and includes' is vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as list_builds or list_releases. Usage must be inferred from the singular 'One build' framing.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not restate it. The description adds only content scope, saying nothing about return format, length, or freshness — acceptable given the annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited content list and no wasted words. The trailing items ('how he builds, what he cares about now') are somewhat abstract but still informative rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does list the substantive content areas. It omits return format and whether the profile is static or dynamic, which are minor gaps for a simple no-arg profile read.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is 100% described, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level confusion is possible.

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 (Jason Lovell's profile) and enumerates its content scope: role, career history, working style, current focus, and contact path. That is more than a restatement of the title, but it never uses an explicit retrieval verb ('returns'/'retrieves'), so differentiation from siblings like get_build or contact_routes is only implicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for biographical/background questions about Jason, and the mention of 'how to reach him' hints at overlap with contact_routes. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named 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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the response contains ('the evidence links and where the evidence stops'), which is meaningful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid slug or the size/shape of the payload.

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 wasted preamble, and the payload enumeration is compact. The phrasing is slightly metaphorical ('where the evidence stops'), which costs a little precision but not length.

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 carries the burden of describing what is returned and does so by listing the major components of a study. For a one-parameter read-only lookup that is nearly sufficient; only the missing routing to list_studies and the undefined invalid-slug behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented with an enum of ten valid values and a pointer to list_studies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — read one study in full — and enumerates the payload components (question, result, design decision, recorded data, evidence links, evidence boundaries). It implicitly contrasts with list_studies by saying 'One study in full', but never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_studies, no prerequisite that a slug must first be obtained, and no exclusions. The only routing hint ('from list_studies') lives in the schema's parameter description, not the tool description, so the description itself gives the agent no usage 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the ordering ('newest first') and a 'public' scope; worse, 'by area' implies a filtering capability that the empty parameter schema cannot support, which is potentially misleading.

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?

It is a single short fragment, so it is compact and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: no verb, and the 'by area' clause carries ambiguity that costs the reader more than the words save.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what a 'build' is and what the agent gets back; instead it offers a terse fragment with an unsupported 'by area' notion. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the remaining gaps are large.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. However, the phrase 'by area' suggests a grouping/filter dimension that no parameter expresses, which slightly muddies the (otherwise non-existent) parameter story.

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 scope (public repositories) and an ordering (newest first), which hints at a listing operation, but it never uses an explicit verb and shifts the resource from the tool's own name ('builds') to 'repositories'. An agent can roughly infer it returns a collection, but cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from siblings like list_releases or get_build.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_build for fetching a single build. The agent is left to infer routing from the bare fragment.

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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful detail that returned items are specifications, a white paper, research software, and include DOIs where available, which tells the agent what the result set contains.

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 single sentence is short but is a grammatical fragment that is under-specified rather than compact, and there is no front-loaded verb to orient the reader. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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 must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it only gestures at content types without stating that this is an unfiltered enumeration or in what form results arrive. For a listing tool that could otherwise be complete in one clause, this falls short.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension sits at 4. The description neither helps nor hurts since there is no argument surface to clarify.

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 is a noun fragment naming content types ('Specifications, a white paper and research software, with DOIs') but never states a verb or that this tool lists releases. An agent gets the subject matter but not the action, and nothing distinguishes it from get_study or search_site.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool despite seven available alternatives. The only usable signal is that it returns releases, which the agent must infer from the name.

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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful value by disclosing the returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens with an unmatched filter.

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 what the tool returns before the filtering note. No filler, though the second sentence is more parameter restatement than guidance and could have carried routing information instead.

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, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and the filter dimension. A note on the alternative get_study tool would make it fully complete.

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 single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's sentence about filtering restates the schema's meaning without adding syntax, default, or behavior beyond it.

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 clear verb+resource: it lists the (ten) research studies and enumerates the fields each carries (question, result kind, outcome, date, page). It is legible as a browsing/listing tool, but it never names the sibling get_study, so the list-vs-single distinction is left implicit.

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?

'Can filter by the question a study asks' implies the browse-and-narrow use case, and the enumeration of fields implies discovery. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against get_study (single study) or search_site, leaving the agent to infer the 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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: no mention of match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), result ordering, result limits, pagination, or the fact that hits can span three entity types with different shapes.

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 verb and the searchable resource set lead. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the usage and parameter detail are absent rather than a virtue on its own.

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 search entry point with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what comes back (mixed study/build/release results) and any result limits or pagination. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the response shape before calling.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents nothing about 'query' beyond type, minLength 1 and maxLength 120. 'By keyword' hints at the intended input but does not explain tokenization, quoting, multi-word handling, or the 120-character cap, leaving the parameter substantially undocumented.

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 ('Find') and resource set ('studies, builds and releases') scoped by keyword, which lets an agent distinguish it from the type-specific siblings like get_build or list_studies. The multi-entity cross-search scope is clear, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those single-entity sibling tools.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies this is the tool to reach for when doing free-text lookup rather than ID-based retrieval, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives among the seven siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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