outfit-assistant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, local, informational nature of the call is covered structurally. The description adds the content covered by the call but says nothing about return format or length. Note that the annotation set is internally odd (destructiveHint=true on a read-only info tool), but the description does not contradict it.

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 compact parenthetical enumerating the key features. Every clause carries information; no padding or repetition.

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 parameterless, non-destructive informational tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to know what the call will talk about. Only the expected form/length of the response is left unspecified, which 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional with no input required.

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 the resource (OutfitMaker) and specifies exactly what the tool returns: an overview of the product and the benefits of connecting a closet, with concrete examples in parentheses. It is clearly distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings suggest_outfit and what_to_wear_today, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'explain' or 'describe'.

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 onboarding/informational entry point rather than a recommendation tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when the user asks what OutfitMaker is' guidance or reference to when the sibling tools are preferred.

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 readOnlyHint=true simultaneously, which is contradictory. The description says nothing about behavior beyond the output being 'curated formulas.' It doesn't explain what destructive means here (likely none) or how the tool behaves. This is a serious gap because the annotations are ambiguous.

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, tightly focused. The list of occasions is a useful summary of allowed values, and nothing 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?

The tool has 6 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but fails to explain what the output looks like (e.g., a formula, a list of items) or how weather parameters interact with the result. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema, including weather-related nuances. The description adds an occasion enumeration but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what's in 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('curated outfit formulas') with the key dimensions (occasion, weather). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like what_to_wear_today, which likely has overlapping purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as what_to_wear_today or about_outfitmaker. The description lists occasions but doesn't say when this is the right choice.

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 and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description usefully adds the evening heuristic and the weather-awareness behavior. It does not disclose that it reaches out for live weather data (tension with openWorldHint=false) nor any rate-limit, latency, or fallback behavior when a city is unavailable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then parameters, then the decision heuristic — no filler. The closing clause ('that's what people dress for') is mildly colloquial but still reinforces the routing rule rather than padding.

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-required-parameter, three-property tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and the intended result ('outfit suggestion'). Only minor gaps remain: no indication of the response shape or behavior when the optional city is omitted.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents day, city, and occasion. The description adds only the evening/day routing rule, which is a modest increment beyond the enum descriptions rather than new syntax or format detail.

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+resource (weather-aware outfit suggestion) with scope limited to today/tomorrow, which is concrete and actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'suggest_outfit', leaving an agent unable to tell which of the two outfit tools to pick from the text alone.

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 a genuinely useful routing heuristic ('Asked in the evening? Use day=tomorrow'), which is more than implied usage for the day parameter. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over 'suggest_outfit' or 'about_outfitmaker', and no stated preconditions (e.g., what happens if city is omitted).

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