Manawa Terminal

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explaining that symbol aliases 'CASH' and blank are normalized to '$CASH', and that qty represents cash amount for deposits/withdrawals. It also specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). This provides useful context that annotations don't convey, though it doesn't mention side effects like portfolio balance updates.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args block. Each line adds necessary information, with no filler or redundancy. It strikes a good balance between completeness and brevity.

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 description is complete for a 6-parameter tool: it covers all required arguments, provides examples and normalization rules, and clarifies the interpretation of qty across transaction types. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. It lacks only minor preconditions (e.g., portfolio existence), which are likely evident.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 6 parameters and their meanings. It explains the special symbol handling for cash transactions and distinguishes qty semantics by side (shares vs cash amount). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a buy, sell, deposit, or withdrawal transaction to a portfolio.' It clearly identifies the action and object, and the transaction types distinguish it from sibling tools that create other resources (e.g., create_portfolio, create_watchlist).

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 doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the description provides clear context: it's for adding any of four transaction types to a portfolio. The parameter guidance (e.g., cash handling) reinforces the intended use case. Since there is no competing sibling tool for adding transactions, this is sufficient.

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?

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations by specifying conditional requirements for different alert types (direction/threshold for price alerts, event_types for event alerts) and enumerating all accepted event types. This gives concrete behavioral expectations that annotations do not provide.

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 description is a well-structured docstring with a clear one-line summary followed by a compact parameter list. Each entry is concise, and the whole is scannable without unnecessary prose.

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 tool with six parameters and conditional logic, the description is thorough: it covers all parameters, their types, required-ness based on alert_type, and the full set of event types. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, conditions, and even providing an example for symbol. It also lists all valid event_types, which the schema does not enumerate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'price or event alert', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alerts and delete_alert. The expanded scope beyond the title's 'price alert' is still specific and meaningful.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: to create a new price or event alert. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose and sibling context make the use case obvious, though not as explicit as it could be.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the folder can be nested under a parent or created as a root folder. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the outcome of omitting parent_id, though it does not mention permissions or side effects.

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 description is exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact args list. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information (root vs nested) is front-loaded. No fluff or 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?

For a simple create operation with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and the critical edge case of root vs nested folders. The tool's low complexity means no further context is needed.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_id' as a parent folder UUID, explicitly stating that omitting it creates a root folder. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a library folder'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the 'library' scope and optional nesting, which differentiates it from create_library_item or create_portfolio.

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 description provides context on how to use the parent_id parameter ('omit for a root folder'), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the create action and markdown resource type, which is more about purpose than behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, response format) are disclosed, but with annotations present, the bar is lower.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a concise Args list. No redundant or filler content exists; every sentence adds value.

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 create tool with 3 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and clear parameter documentation, the description is adequate. It explains what is created, the required inputs, and the optional folder parameter. It does not mention return values (output schema covers that) or potential errors, but these are not critical gaps for selection and 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 0%, so the Args section in the description carries the semantic burden. It explains each parameter: title as 'Document title', content as 'Markdown body', and folder_id as 'Folder UUID (optional — omit for library root)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields, though it could be more detailed about invariants like folder existence.

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 clearly states 'Create a new markdown document in the research library' with a specific verb, resource type, and destination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_library_folder, which creates folders, and other create_* 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 description implies usage context ('research library', 'markdown document') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so it relies on the agent inferring from sibling names and the resource description.

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 indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description only restates the schema parameters (name, currency) without adding any extra behavioral details such as idempotency, duplicate handling, or required permissions. It adds no information beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 description is extremely concise, leading with a clear purpose sentence and then listing the two parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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 simple two-parameter create tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the required inputs. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. Minor omissions like duplicate name behavior are not essential for basic 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its parameters. The description compensates fully by explaining 'name' as the portfolio name and 'currency' as the base currency with a default of USD. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 clearly states 'Create a portfolio' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_watchlist or create_alert by targeting the portfolio entity.

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 context is clear: use this tool to create a new portfolio. It does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives, but the purpose is evident among the sibling tools. No exclusion is necessary for such a straightforward create operation.

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?

The description only repeats the basic creation action and parameter names, adding no behavioral details such as idempotency, duplicate handling, permissions, or return value behavior. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description offers no extra transparency beyond that minimal signal.

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 description is extremely concise, with a direct opening sentence and minimal parameter explanations. No fluff or repetition; every line serves a clear purpose and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 is simple with two straightforward parameters and an output schema exists, so the description covers the essentials. However, it omits behavioral context like what happens on duplicate names or whether the action is reversible, and lacks usage guidance, leaving it adequate but incomplete for an AI agent.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the description's Args section adds some value. 'symbols' is clarified with an example (['AAPL', 'MSFT']), aiding understanding, while 'name' is tautological ('Watchlist name'). This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but is not deeply informative.

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 clearly states the tool creates a watchlist with a given name and ticker symbols, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_watchlist by focusing on the creation action, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_watchlist or list_watchlists. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.

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?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'delete by ID', but the safety profile is already covered.

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 description is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns every sentence.

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 delete operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it omits potential caveats like irreversibility or ownership requirements, though these are partially implied by the destructiveHint.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by specifying alert_id as a UUID. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type, though it lacks additional details.

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 clearly states the tool deletes an alert by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_alert and list_alerts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as requiring an existing alert_id or confirming permanence. The description only states what it does without context for usage.

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?

The description adds the key behavioral detail that the folder's contents are also deleted, which goes beyond the annotations' mere destructiveHint flag. It clarifies the cascading nature of the deletion, though it doesn't mention irreversibility (already implied by 'delete').

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 description is a single imperative sentence followed by a minimal args list. It is front-loaded and has no filler, earning a high score.

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 delete operation, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameter. The output schema handles return values, and annotations convey the destructive nature. However, it could mention error conditions or necessary permissions, but these are likely assumed for a straightforward delete.

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 schema only defines folder_id as a required string with no description. The description's Args block states 'The folder UUID', adding format information (UUID) that the schema lacks, which is helpful but minimal; it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID or any validation rules.

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 'Delete a library folder and everything inside it' with a clear verb and resource, and the 'everything inside it' distinguishes it from delete_library_item and other folder operations. This provides specific scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like move_library_folder or rename_library_folder is provided. The context only implies that deletion is intended for discarding a folder and its contents, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

The annotation already includes destructiveHint:true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context that the deletion removes all stored versions, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the annotation. It doesn't mention irreversibility or permissions, but the annotation covers the core destructive trait.

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 description is concise and front-loaded. The main statement is one sentence, followed by a minimal Args section. Every word contributes value 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, effect, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return values, so no additional return info is needed. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 schema provides no description for item_id, so the description's Args section ('The item UUID') fills the gap. This is sufficient to understand the parameter format and purpose, though it is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('library document'), and important scope ('all of its stored versions'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_alert and delete_library_folder.

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 tool's purpose is evident from the name and description, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. Since there is likely no alternative for deleting a library item, this is acceptable but not top-tier.

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It discloses the tool returns an inline widget, instructs to pass the user's question without rephrasing, and explains the behavior of each exclusive Deep Dive mode (narrative section, thin data slice, catalog listing). No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering coverage, usage workflow, and parameter details. The Args block is concise. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and multiple modes, though a minor trim could improve focus.

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 description is complete for a read-only search tool with no output schema. It covers return format (answer with widget), coverage scope, parameter semantics, and conditional modes. It also provides a clear workflow for watchlist screening. There are no significant gaps given the tool's complexity and available annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: query (user's financial question), symbols (ticker universe from watchlists), section (enumerated Deep Dive sections), focus (allowed values ai|raw|auto|catalog), and source (examples for raw slices). This makes all parameters actionable and clear.

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 clearly states the tool searches financial data and returns an answer with an inline widget, covering numerous asset classes and question types. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_library by specifying financial data and from list_watchlists/list_portfolios by describing the screening workflow.

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 description provides explicit guidance: to screen a named watchlist/portfolio, first call list_watchlists or list_portfolios, then pass symbols here. It also details exclusive Deep Dive modes (focus=ai, focus=raw, focus=catalog) with exact parameter combinations and when they apply, offering clear alternatives within the tool.

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 the description adds meaningful behavioral context: draft entries are not accessible, and valid IDs depend on the daily generation cycle. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe all possible error or edge behaviors.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage note, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. The existence of an output schema means return details are already provided elsewhere.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter: 'entry_id: Journal entry id from list_journal (integer or UUID)', including the source and valid types, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a full generated journal entry by ID from list_journal.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource (journal entry), and distinguishes from siblings like list_journal by focusing on retrieval by ID.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: draft IDs from submit_journal_draft are not readable until end-of-day generation, and users should 'use list_journal after the daily run for valid entry ids.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (for generated entries) and how to obtain valid IDs.

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 the description's 'Get' agrees with that. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as whether it returns the latest version, handles large content, or requires special permissions, but it does not contradict the annotation either.

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 description is extremely compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only the necessary parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given the simple get-by-UUID operation, the presence of an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential information. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that is already scored under Usage Guidelines, and the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly defining item_id as 'The item UUID,' which gives meaningful format guidance beyond the schema's plain string type. This is minimal but sufficient for a single required 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a library document's metadata and content, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_library_item, list_library_items, or delete_library_item. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource makes the purpose 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?

The description implies this is for fetching a single item by UUID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over list_library_items or search_library. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage to be inferred.

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?

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true) already disclose the read-only behavior, and the description adds 'recent triggered' as a scope. However, it does not disclose sorting, limits, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations already provide. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 description is a single, well-formed sentence of five words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundant information, and is entirely to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose. In the context of sibling tools that are largely CRUD operations, this read-only getter is unambiguous and needs no additional context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description correctly omits parameter information since there are none. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate for a 0-parameter tool.

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 'Get recent triggered alert notifications' uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'alert notifications' with the qualifier 'recent triggered'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alerts, which likely lists alert configurations rather than the notifications they trigger.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving triggered alert notifications but does not explicitly state when to use it over list_alerts or other siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the context implicit rather than explicit.

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 the description aligns as a read operation. The description adds useful context about what statistics are included, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as return format or pagination.

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 description is concise and front-loaded, with a single clear sentence followed by a simple argument spec. No wasted words or redundant 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present. The description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the relevant output categories, making it sufficiently complete for the 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 0%, leaving the description to carry semantic meaning. It clearly identifies portfolio_id as a 'portfolio UUID', which goes beyond the bare schema type and clarifies the expected input.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('portfolio performance statistics') and enumerates the included categories (returns, allocation, risk), distinguishing it from siblings like get_positions or list_portfolios.

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 description implies this tool is for performance statistics rather than positions or other portfolio data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does clarify that holdings are 'current' and lists return fields, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or other quirks. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not richly informative.

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 description is exceptionally concise: two sentences for purpose plus a brief Args block. Every word provides value, and the format is front-loaded with the core action.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap. Overall it is nearly 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 schema only defines portfolio_id as a string, but the description adds that it is a 'portfolio UUID', giving it real meaning. Although the parameter is simple, the description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explicitly documenting its purpose.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves current holdings and enumerates the key fields (quantity, cost basis, market value, unrealized P&L). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portfolios or get_portfolio_statistics.

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 context is implied: you call this to see positions for a given portfolio_id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, such as get_portfolio_statistics, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter.

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 the description adds useful context: it lists only 'active' alerts, includes both price and event alerts, and specifies the authenticated-user scope. It does not detail pagination or ordering, but with an output schema present this is not a major gap.

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 words. Every element (active, price/event, authenticated user) 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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states the resource, the filter (active), the scope, and the user context.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed for a parameterless list operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active price and event alerts'), and scopes to the authenticated user. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_alert and delete_alert.

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 intended use is implied by the word 'List' but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or what prerequisites exist. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that results are limited to generated entries, that there is a timing constraint (after end-of-day run), and that drafts are excluded. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations do not convey.

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 description is two concise sentences, starts with the core purpose, and adds necessary caveats without any waste. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the key behaviors: what is listed, ordering, timing, and exclusion of drafts. There are no significant gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate per the guidelines.

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 clearly states the tool lists generated daily research journal entries, most recent first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_journal_entry (which retrieves a single entry) and submit_journal_draft (which creates drafts).

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 description provides clear timing context: entries appear only after the automatic end-of-day generation run, and drafts are not listed until that run completes. This implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool to view drafts, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by saying 'List.' The description adds useful context about operating on the authenticated user's library, but it does not mention whether nested folders are included, result ordering, or pagination behavior. This adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that directly states what the tool does without any wasteful repetition of the tool name or title. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core usage. The only minor gap is that it does not specify whether nested folders are included or how results are ordered, but these details are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying the resource type (folders in the research library), but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the action ('List folders') and the scope ('in the authenticated user's research library'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_library_items and search_library. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose 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?

The description implies that this tool is for listing folders (not items or searches) by directly stating the resource type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_library_items or search_library, nor does it provide conditions for when to use it over those tools. The guidance is only implicit.

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, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds that omitting folder_id lists root-level items, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, but doesn't mention pagination or ordering. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences plus an Args block. The description is front-loaded with the core behavior, and every word earns its place without fluff.

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 only one simple optional parameter, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It could mention pagination or that it lists only documents (not folders), but the root/folder distinction is well covered and complexity is low.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that folder_id is an optional Folder UUID and that omitting it lists root items, adding meaningful semantics not present in the schema's generic string/null type.

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 clearly states the tool lists documents in a library folder, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents in a library folder'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_library_folders and get_library_item by specifying it lists documents and optionally at the root.

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?

Provides clear context: use folder_id to list a specific folder, omit for root-level items. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the optional folder behavior gives enough guidance for basic use versus searching or getting a single item.

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, which the description supports. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are ordered newest first. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a reasonable but not rich addition.

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 description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a short parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description adequately covers its context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter, and ordering. It does not detail version history specifics (e.g., metadata included), but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section explaining item_id as 'The item UUID', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema (type string, title Item Id). For a single-parameter tool, this sufficiently clarifies the parameter's role and format.

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 clearly states the tool lists version history for a library document, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'library document versions'. It also notes ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_library_items or get_library_item. This is a specific and unambiguous 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternate tools (e.g., use get_library_item for current version, or list_library_items for all items). The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping detail ('authenticated user's'), which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or response shape. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the additional context is sufficient for a 3.

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 description is a single sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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 is simple with no parameters, annotations indicating read-only behavior, and an output schema present. The description is complete for this level of complexity; no return-value explanation is needed given the output schema. The scope is adequately conveyed.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters. The description is clear that no input is 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('portfolios'), scoped to 'the authenticated user's'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_alerts and list_watchlists, which target different resources. The verb is specific and 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when the user needs to see their portfolios. While no explicit alternative is mentioned, the absence of a competing list tool for portfolios makes the usage context clear. The scope 'authenticated user's' adds useful 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, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds that the response includes symbols, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose additional behavior such as pagination or ordering. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a top score.

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 read-only list operation with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states the scope ('authenticated user's watchlists') and what is returned ('their symbols'). No additional context is needed.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter details since none exist. The schema is empty and the description adds no parameter information, which is correct.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('the authenticated user's watchlists'), with additional detail 'and their symbols' that specifies the response scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_watchlist and update_watchlist.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only operation for fetching the user's watchlists. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the verb 'List' and the sibling set (create/update) make the usage obvious without exclusions.

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 that this is not read-only and not destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds that moving to root is possible by omitting parent_id. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether child items move along or if the operation is reversible.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args block. No unnecessary words 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 simple move operation, the description covers the operation and parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists so that is not needed. It could mention whether the move is recursive or if there are prerequisites, but the essentials are 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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: folder_id is the UUID to move, and parent_id is the new parent or null for root. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action (move), the resource (library folder), and the scope (under a different parent or root). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'move_library_item' (moving items) and 'rename_library_folder' (renaming).

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 description makes it clear this is for moving library folders, and the sibling names provide context (e.g., move_library_item for items). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the root-destination nuance but does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., whether the item is removed from its previous folder), which are fairly obvious for a move operation. Given annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not exceptional transparency.

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 description is a single clear sentence plus a compact Args block that adds value (null behavior). No wasted words or redundancy beyond 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 simple two-parameter move operation with an output schema and annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It covers purpose, parameters, and destination semantics completely.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters, including the item_id as UUID and folder_id as destination with null-for-root behavior. This fully compensates for the missing 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('library document'), and clarifies destination options ('different folder' or 'root'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like move_library_folder and delete_library_item.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool—when moving an item between folders. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient and unambiguous.

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?

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description simply repeats the rename action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or effect on folder contents. It provides no additional transparency beyond what annotations convey.

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 description is extremely concise, with the purpose stated first in a single sentence, followed by a minimal Args section that adds necessary parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, an output schema present, and a clear rename operation), the description covers the essential invocation details. It does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., folder not found, duplicate name), but these are not critical for a straightforward rename and are partly handled by the presence of an output 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by defining both parameters: 'folder_id: The folder UUID' and 'name: New folder name'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema (which only lists types and titles), clarifying that folder_id is the unique identifier and name is the replacement name.

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 'Rename a library folder' clearly specifies the action (rename) and the resource (library folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_library_folder, create_library_folder, and delete_library_folder. It is a specific verb+resource statement, not a tautology.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose—it is for renaming an existing library folder—but it does not state when it should be preferred over move or delete, nor any prerequisites like folder existence.

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 valuable context by specifying the scope ('authenticated user's library') and a behavioral cap ('capped at 50'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational details beyond 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in one sentence followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 search tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description covers the purpose, scope, parameters, defaults, and limit cap. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query: Search terms' and 'limit: Max results (default 20, capped at 50)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it could be more detailed about query syntax.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text search across the authenticated user's library documents,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_library_items (browsing) and finance_search (financial search).

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 description implies usage for full-text search within the user's library but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_library_items or finance_search. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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 indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral detail: the draft is accepted immediately, the readable entry is generated at end of day, and the draft id cannot be used with list_journal/get_journal_entry until then. This is beyond what annotations convey.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential caveats. The Args section is clearly structured. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a tool with two-phase behavior and an id mismatch, the description covers all key points: same-day resubmissions, immediate acceptance, automatic generation, appearance in list_journal, and the temporary id discrepancy. It is complete despite the lack of parameter details in 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 0%, but the description provides an Args section explaining entry_date as 'Day the draft is for (YYYY-MM-DD)' and content as 'Draft text.' This compensates for the schema's bare property names and gives format guidance.

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 opens with 'Submit a journal draft for a day,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like list_journal and get_journal_entry by clarifying that the returned draft id is not the same as the entry id until the end of day.

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 description provides clear context for use: same-day resubmissions are retained as separate drafts, and the entry appears in list_journal only after end-of-day processing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for draft submission.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that content edits create a new version, a key behavioral nuance not captured in annotations. It does not discuss auth requirements or error conditions, but the versioning detail significantly enhances transparency beyond the structured data.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a single sentence summarizing the action and versioning effect, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the essential behavior (update title/content, versioning on content edits) and the output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, it is ambiguous whether title-only changes also create a new version, and it does not mention how to view old versions (sibling list_library_item_versions) or target a specific version. This leaves some contextual gaps, but overall the tool is adequately defined for a straightforward update operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing all three parameters with brief but meaningful explanations: item_id is 'the item UUID', title is 'New title (optional)', and content is 'New markdown body (optional)'. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema, though it does not explore edge cases like null vs omitted or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a library document's title and/or content' with the additional detail that content edits create a new version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_library_item, delete_library_item, and list_library_item_versions.

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 description implies the tool is for modifying an existing library item, which is clear from the context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond versioning behavior. The versioning note is helpful but does not fully clarify usage boundaries.

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?

The description states it updates a watchlist but does not disclose whether the symbol list is replaced entirely or merged, or what happens if name or symbols are null. Annotations indicate it's a write (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds no further 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?

The description is concise with a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, but the Args block partially duplicates schema information and could be streamlined.

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 update tool, the description should clarify that symbols replaces the entire list and note any permissions or existence requirements. The output schema may cover return values, but key behavioral details are missing, making the description incomplete for a mutation operation.

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 description adds brief semantic labels: 'The watchlist UUID' for watchlist_id, 'New name (optional)' for name, and 'Updated list of symbols (optional)' for symbols. This goes beyond the raw schema but lacks detail on symbol format, replacement behavior, or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool updates a watchlist's name and/or symbols, identifying the specific action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_watchlist and list_watchlists, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating a new watchlist or deleting one. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for updating, leaving the decision context unspecified.

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