Noemic Fabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds slots but does not mention side effects, permissions, or constraints (e.g., whether overlapping slots are rejected). The default for endsAt is disclosed, but overall transparency is low.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a key behavioral default. Every word 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?

Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a default behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, validation, or prerequisites (e.g., user must exist). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 50%. The description adds the default for endsAt (one hour after startsAt), which is not in the schema. However, the email parameter is not described at all, so the description partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 adds open session slots to a user's profile. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'become_available' or 'get_availability'.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a default behavior for endsAt, but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it requires consent, is append-only, and date-stamped. This clearly communicates that the tool is non-destructive and adds timestamps.

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 succinct sentences. The first states the action and consent. The second lists examples and properties (append-only, date-stamped). No wasted words.

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 purpose, content examples, behavioral traits, and consent. It does not explain error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., user existence), but for a simple append tool with no output schema, it is reasonably 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 input schema has 50% description coverage (email has a description, text does not). The description adds meaning for text by explaining what kind of text is appropriate, compensating for the missing schema description. Email is already described in 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 'Append text to the user's agent-readable corpus' using a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of content to add, and the tool is distinct from all siblings which are about sessions, availability, bookings, etc.

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 clear intent: 'Anything that would help future matching.' It implies this is the tool for adding user context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, though siblings don't overlap.

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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses key behaviors: no credentials, no review queue, rate flexibility, optional availability. However, it does not specify idempotency or behavior if profile already exists (e.g., overwrite or error).

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states core purpose, second provides drafting guidance, third lists qualifying conditions, fourth explains rate and availability. No 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?

Given 8 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., profile ID or confirmation), but overall is sufficiently complete for an 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?

Schema coverage is high (88%), but the description adds value beyond schema by clarifying semantic intent: 'story' as first-person narrative, 'corpus' for agent-readable details, and 'rate=0' as free/credits-only. It reinforces usage of 'createdVia' for in-session commits.

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 user profile to enable booking, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('user's profile'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_my_profile' by focusing on initial creation and includes unique context (no credentials, self-set rate).

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 usage context: draft from conversation, confirm with user, no credentials needed. It implies when to use (when user wants to be bookable) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to sibling tools like 'add_availability' or 'update_my_profile'.

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 no annotations, the description discloses pricing behavior (first free, then credit, then charge) and mentions output (result states what was paid). It lacks details on side effects like slot locking or authentication needs, but is strong for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states action, second explains pricing and output. Efficient, front-loaded, no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers pricing logic and output hint, but omits authentication, error handling, and slot validation. Minimally complete but leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (33% – only email described). The description does not explain slotId or profileId, missing an opportunity to clarify their roles. It adds only general context about booking, not parameter specifics.

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 'Book an open slot with a person' clearly states the verb (Book) and resource (open slot, person), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_booking or complete_session.

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 when to use (to book a slot) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites (e.g., check availability), or alternatives (e.g., using get_availability first).

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 discloses key behaviors: refund of charge, return of redeemed credit, and reopening of slot. This is good for a cancellation tool, though it could mention idempotency or error conditions.

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?

One sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and effects with no wasted words.

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 core action and results but omits prerequisites (e.g., booking must be confirmed, user must own it) and return value. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 adds no explanation about the bookingId parameter beyond the schema. It does not clarify how to obtain a valid bookingId or any constraints.

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 (cancel) and the resource (confirmed booking), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like book_session (create) and my_bookings (list).

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 it is for confirmed bookings only, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives such as modifying a booking instead of cancelling.

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?

No annotations provided, but description discloses side effects: host earns a session credit and quality record grows. Beyond basic completion, adds behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key usage condition. Every word contributes.

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?

Describes purpose and side effects adequately for a simple tool, but fails to document the sole parameter, which is a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and description does not mention the 'bookingId' parameter or its meaning, leaving the parameter unexplained.

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?

Clearly states the action: marking a session completed. Distinguishes from siblings like book_session and cancel_booking by focusing on post-session completion.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call after a session actually happened,' indicating when to use. Does not describe when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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?

Discloses behavioral traits: server-enforced cap of $500 active stakes, refund/forfeit outcomes, and need for follow-up. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Concise and includes essential details 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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and result reporting (remaining headroom). Lacks return value details but sufficient for a create action with no 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?

Schema coverage is 60%; description adds value by explaining title should be concrete and checkable. However, other parameters like email and deadline are not elaborated beyond 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 stakes real money on a commitment with a deadline, and distinguishes success/failure outcomes. It differentiates from sibling tools like resolve_commitment and my_commitments.

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: make title concrete and checkable, follow up before deadline, and mentions server-enforced cap. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context is clear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only future and unbooked slots are returned, sorted soonest first. This is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or any 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 a single sentence, front-loading the key purpose. Every word is necessary and adds value. No wasted text.

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 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, for whom, and ordering. It lacks mention of the return format, but this is minor for a straightforward listing tool.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its single parameter 'profileId'. The description mentions 'for a person', which hints that the parameter identifies the person, but does not explicitly state it. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool returns 'open (unbooked, future) slots for a person, soonest first.' It specifies the resource (slots), scope (unbooked, future), and ordering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_availability' or 'book_session'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools perform related actions, but the description offers no differentiation.

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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what is returned ('Full profile (story + corpus)') but omits other behavioral traits like auth requirements, idempotency, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying purpose and input.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input and output content. However, the terms 'story' and 'corpus' are domain-specific and unexplained, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 mentions 'by profile id', clarifying the sole required parameter. While minimal, it is sufficient for a single well-named string parameter, adding 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 it retrieves the full profile (story and corpus) for one person by profile ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_people' (multiple people) and 'my_profile' (own profile), using a specific verb and resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_people' or 'my_profile'. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation scenarios.

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 no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'reading everyone is cheap,' indicating low cost, but lacks details on whether it's read-only, pagination, or ordering. More specificity would improve 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately informs the agent about what the tool does and when to use it. Minor gaps like return format or scope details could be added for completeness.

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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter info. With 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further detail is needed.

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 it lists all people with full stories and corpora, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_person (single person) and match_me (matching).

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 cheaper and often better than matching, providing context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It indicates a read operation ('get ranked people') with no mention of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. While 'matching reads narratives' suggests safe behavior, more detail on output format or data handling would improve 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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides a specific use case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format. It mentions 'ranked people with their stories' but lacks details like fields, pagination, or sorting. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 50%; the 'need' parameter is described but 'limit' is not. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'need' parameter ('the more real the better'), but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema-defined constraints. The description partially compensates for the missing schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: given a plain-language need description, it returns ranked people with their stories. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_people' by emphasizing narrative-based matching and the use case of showing who is already present before suggesting the user offer sessions.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool before advising the user to offer sessions, providing a concrete usage scenario. It does not specify when not to use it, but the context and sibling tool list imply that for specific known users, 'get_person' might be more appropriate.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns bookings and their order but does not disclose authentication needs, data limits, or pagination behavior.

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 communicates the core functionality and ordering. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 what is returned (bookings as client/host) and ordering, but lacks details on return fields, whether it includes past bookings, or pagination. Since no output schema exists, the description should provide more 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 single parameter 'email' is fully described in the schema (format and purpose). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3.

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 it lists bookings for the user as both client and host, sorted soonest first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like book_session (creates) or cancel_booking (cancels).

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 viewing bookings but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or 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?

Without annotations, the description indicates it returns a list of commitments sorted by active first. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has pagination/limits, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the key information about what the tool returns and its sorting. It is efficiently structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a use case. Minor gaps include lack of clarification on 'active first' ordering and no hint about return structure.

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 single parameter (email) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists 'All commitments with status and deadlines (active first)', specifying the resource (commitments) and details (status, deadlines, sorting). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_commitment or resolve_commitment by focusing on retrieval.

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 suggests a use case: 'Check for approaching deadlines worth nudging about.' This provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with siblings like my_bookings or get_person.

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?

Without annotations, the description successfully discloses key behavioral traits: credits are unredeemed, earned by hosting, and auto-redeem on the next paid booking. This goes beyond the basic schema and informs the agent of automatic behavior.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains the nature of credits well. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., count, list) that would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'email', which is already described adequately in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool returns unredeemed session credits earned by hosting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'my_bookings' and 'my_commitments' by focusing on credits rather than sessions or commitments.

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 used to view credits before a booking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like checking 'my_bookings' or 'my_profile'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is 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?

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only probe ('status probe') and mentions cost comparison, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or disclose any side effects. Adds moderate behavioral context beyond schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage advice. Every sentence is essential and directly contributes to understanding. 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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what the tool returns (profile, missing details, credits, sessions, commitments). Sufficient for the agent to decide and interpret results.

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% with description for email. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides – just restates that email is the user's identity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it checks user profile status, missing items for bookability, credits, upcoming sessions, and commitments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like my_bookings or my_credits by aggregating multiple data points.

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?

Explicitly advises to call before assuming user state and notes it's cheaper than asking. Provides clear context for when to use, though doesn't list alternatives or 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?

Discloses behavioral traits: succeeded refunds stake, failed forfeits stake. Also mentions the self-report nature and requirement for honesty. Without annotations, this provides sufficient 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and outcomes.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, outcomes, and usage method. Could mention finality of resolution, but overall sufficient.

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?

Adds meaning for the 'succeeded' parameter by explaining the outcomes, but does not describe 'commitmentId' or 'note'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 resolves a commitment with two distinct outcomes (succeeded vs failed) and their consequences. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing from siblings like create_commitment.

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?

Explicitly states 'Self-report — ask the user directly and record their answer honestly,' providing clear direction on how to use it. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the self-report instruction is strong.

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 no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'update' implying mutation but fails to disclose side effects, authorization requirements (e.g., user must be logged in), or whether updates are incremental or full replacement. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 with no extraneous words, efficiently conveying the core action and modifiable fields. It is appropriately sized for quick parsing.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits critical details like the required email role as identity, return value, and behavior on partial updates. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (email and hourlyRateDollars have descriptions). The description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning, constraints, or formatting guidance. For the 5 undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate, leaving agents to guess their semantics.

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 clear verb ('Update') and lists specific resources (display name, headline, story, rate, listing/visibility flags), making the tool's purpose apparent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'my_profile' or 'become_available', leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'my_profile' for reading or other update tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the email parameter for identification, nor does it explain when not to use this tool.

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