Myagi - Open Agent Registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns structured information' without mentioning safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other operational characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is concise with 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 the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and lists the available topics. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the output structure or examples, but this is not critical for a simple query 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 already covers the parameter 'topic' with a full enum description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing the kinds of information returned, but does not map each topic to specific output. Baseline is 3 due to high schema 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 returns structured information about the Myagi platform, listing specific content types (phase, milestones, conceptual model, roadmap). This differentiates it from sibling tools like registry_lookup (likely for looking up other entities) and submit_inquiry (for submissions).

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, nor does it mention when not to use it. While sibling names imply differentiation, the description itself lacks explicit usage context.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as a lookup (read-only), mentions the proxied API call, and states the return value format. It lacks details on potential errors or authentication, but given the simplicity, it is largely transparent.

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

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

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the primary purpose, followed by implementation detail and return value description. Efficient and well-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?

For a simple, single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works (proxied API), and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to use 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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., domain pattern and example). No extra context 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 the tool retrieves a domain's agent-readiness score, specifies the proxied API endpoint, and lists the returned fields. It unambiguously describes the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_platform and submit_inquiry.

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 when to use the tool (to look up a domain's score) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives (e.g., if a more comprehensive query is needed). Sibling tool names suggest different actions, but no direct guidance is given.

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 that the inquiry forwards to a specific email and returns an inquiry ID on success, but does not mention failure cases or side effects (e.g., email sending). Since no annotations exist, description carries the full burden and is only partially transparent.

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, no filler. 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 3-parameter submission tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, destination, and return value. Lacks error handling details but is largely complete given low 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema fields. Does not explain format, constraints, or purpose of parameters.

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 submits a contact inquiry on behalf of the operator, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (query_platform, registry_lookup) which have different purposes.

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?

Implied usage 'on behalf of the calling agent's operator' gives context, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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