SPOE

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the lifecycle enumeration (queued, generating, reviewing, waiting for the owner, applied, failed) and the fact that a verdict and published address may accompany it. That tells an agent what states to expect and interpret, though it says nothing about permissions, latency, or staleness of the status.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded and the build states inline rather than as a separate list. Dense but with no filler; every clause maps to something the tool actually reports.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does: current build phase, review verdict, and live URL when published. For a one-parameter read-only status tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: project_id is documented in the schema itself, including where to obtain it (create_app or list_apps). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

A specific verb ("Show") plus a clearly bounded resource: the standing of one app on the account, decomposed into latest build state, review verdict, and live address. This is plainly distinct from create_app, list_apps, and check_handle, and the enumerated build phases make the scope of "status" unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to poll after create_app or to inspect a single app from list_apps. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the siblings by name, and no note on whether it should be called repeatedly to track build progress.

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 only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that — the trust model ('only trusted while it still calls a certainly-taken name taken'), and the degraded-result behavior for platforms that refuse checks (Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Reddit return 'check yourself' with a link). It omits latency, rate limits, and partial-failure handling, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with what is checked and how many platforms, then the reliability caveat, then the cost model. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on results by explaining the 'check yourself' fallback shape. It could say more about what a successful result contains (per-platform statuses) and about partial failures, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already supplies the format example ('rosiebakes' or '@rosie_bakes'), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'brand name or username' phrasing adds no syntax or normalization detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (check) and resource (brand name/username availability) with concrete scope: 29 named platforms plus domain endings. An agent can immediately tell this is a cross-platform availability lookup, distinct from the app-management siblings (app_status, create_app, list_apps).

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 clear operating context — free, no API key needed, and the coverage list — which helps an agent decide this is the right call for name availability. It does not, however, state any explicit when-not-to-use condition or point to an alternative tool, 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?

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: a second AI from another model family reviews the change, credits are estimated first, charged only on completion and never on failure, and it returns a studio link plus a project id. The annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent), so this billing/review/return disclosure is genuinely additive.

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, front-loaded with the action and the mode split, then behavior, then billing, then return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode choice, the asynchronous review/build process, the cost model, and the return payload. Everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds consequence-level meaning the schema lacks: what 'website' vs 'app' actually produces and where a website can be published. It does not add formatting hints for name/description beyond the schema text.

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 ('Start building a new app or website on SPOE from a description') and immediately splits the resource into its two concrete variants, website vs app, each with its stack. An agent can tell this apart from app_status/list_apps/check_handle without opening any 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?

Gives clear selection criteria between the two modes ('website' = fast plain HTML, publishable at name.spoe.dev; 'app' = full-stack Next.js/Fastify/Postgres) and points to app_status for tracking the build. It does not state any when-not conditions or what to do for an existing project, so it stops short of the top band.

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 openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, they include studio links, and they are scoped to the API key's own account. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which keeps it from 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then layers ordering and return content without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and returned content, which is most of what an agent needs. It could note pagination or result-size behavior to be 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description's account scoping clarifies the implicit filter, but no argument syntax exists to describe.

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 (List) and resource (apps and websites) plus scope (the SPOE account this API key belongs to). The verb clearly separates it from create_app, app_status, and check_handle, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the verb and scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer app_status or check_handle instead. Adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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