Myagi - Open Agent Registry

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 indicates the tool is a read-only query returning structured information, which is minimal but sufficient for a simple informational tool. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous details. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and read-only nature, the description is largely complete. It covers the main query options but omits mention of the return format and the 'contact' topic.

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 100% coverage with a single parameter including description and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and even mentions 'milestones' which is not an enum option, potentially causing confusion. The tool does not elaborate on what each topic returns.

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 and enumerates specific types: current phase, milestones, conceptual model, and public roadmap. This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like registry_lookup 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 implies it is for obtaining platform information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the sibling tool names suggest different purposes.

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 discloses the proxy endpoint and return structure, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return type is concisely described. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions the proxy endpoint and the full response structure. Minor omission: no explicit mention of read-only nature.

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% and includes a pattern and description for the single parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool's action ('Look up a domain's agent-readiness score') and the specific resource (Open Agent Registry). It also distinguishes from siblings by describing a specific lookup functionality not covered by query_platform or 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 implies usage (looking up a domain's score) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks comparative context with 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the forwarding action and return value, but lacks details on potential side effects, latency, error handling, or validation constraints beyond the schema. This is adequate but leaves 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the key action. Every sentence provides 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 the simplicity of the tool (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return value. However, it could specify the expected format of the inquiry ID or success/error response 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond their names (name, email, message). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent with no insight into parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'submit', the resource 'contact inquiry', and specifies the forwarding destination (contact@myagi.bot) and the return value (inquiry ID). It distinguishes from siblings (query_platform, registry_lookup) which are different operations.

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 when the agent wants to submit a contact inquiry on behalf of the operator, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. 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.