b0tl1nk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Soft-delete' usefully signals a reversible/hidden deletion rather than a permanent one. It does not, however, describe what happens to the listing's visibility, whether it can be restored, or what response the caller should expect.

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 six-word sentence conveys the action, resource, and ownership restriction with no filler. It is front-loaded 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?

For a two-parameter tool the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the call, but without annotations or an output schema it leaves out soft-delete semantics (e.g., visibility/restoration) and any permission details beyond the api_key parameter. A short sentence on the effect would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both id and api_key are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for fully covered 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 uses a specific verb ('Soft-delete'), names the resource ('a listing'), and adds the scoping condition 'you own.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as update_app and publish_app.

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 provides clear context: the tool should be used to soft-delete listings that the caller owns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the ownership qualifier offers practical selection 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It signals a read operation and usefully discloses that the response includes how_to and the signed payload. It does not cover auth, error behavior, or what the signed payload is for, but for a simple read this is a moderate 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?

One short, information-dense sentence with the identifying selector and key response highlights. Every phrase earns its place and nothing repeats 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it tells the agent what id to supply and what to expect back. The explicit mention of how_to and the signed payload is valuable; omissions such as auth or not-found behavior are less important for 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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, including the source ('from search_apps') and an example prefix. The description adds the term 'opaque id', but the schema already does most of the work.

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

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

States a specific action ('Get one listing') and a resource ('by opaque id'), plus distinctive response contents (how_to and signed payload). This clearly separates it from search_apps and the mutation siblings.

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?

Implies the tool is for fetching an already-known app id, and the schema reinforces this with 'App id from search_apps'. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to alternatives, leaving the routing partly 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: the app 'Auto-publishes' (no draft state), and it states the required api_key and payload signature. However, it does not mention reversibility, what response is returned, or whether this creates a new app or overwrites an existing listing.

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 appropriately ultra-short: one sentence for purpose, one for side effect, and one for requirements. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening 'List an app' is slightly ambiguous.

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

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

For a three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is enough to invoke the tool: it names required auth and the signing requirement. However, it omits return-value behavior (there is no output schema) and does not clarify how this operation relates to update_app or get_app, leaving a moderate gap for a write operation with no annotation safety net.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'Requires api_key plus signature of the payload string' adds no meaningful information beyond the schema's existing descriptions and required field markers.

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 the core action ('List an app') and immediately clarifies the outcome ('Auto-publishes'), so an agent can tell this is a publish operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_app, and 'List' could briefly be misread as a read operation, but the tool name and 'Auto-publishes' resolve that ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The only usage-adjacent information is 'Requires api_key plus signature', which is an authentication prerequisite, not a selection criterion or comparison 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the api_key is shown once and that payload must be a signed JSON string, but it does not describe side effects, irreversibility, auth requirements, or behavior on repeated registration with the same key.

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 short sentences with no filler; the key behavioral constraint and return caveat are front-loaded. Every sentence 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 simple three-parameter registration call without an output schema, the description states the important return behavior and the signing reqirement. It could add a note about what the api_key is used for, but the core call is adequely specified.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including that payload is the exact signed bytes. The description adds little beyond the schema, mainly restating that payload must be signed.

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 a clear verb and resource: registering an Ed25519 public key, and notes the api_key return. It does not explicitly connect the key to the 'publisher' concept implied by the tool name, but the operation is distinct from the sibling app CRUD 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 this is an onboarding/registration step, but it never states when to use register_publisher instead of publish_app or search_apps, nor does it mention any prerequisite relationship. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, though the purpose is reasonably inferred from the name and 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 carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not explicitly state whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, whether authentication is needed, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic search operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 optional parameters fully described in the schema, but there is no output schema and no guidance on sibling differentiation. The description tells what the tool searches but not what the result looks like or how to interpret the response, leaving minor but real gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('the b0tl1nk directory of apps listed for other AI agents'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_app, publish_app, and get_app, which involve different operations on apps.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_app or other siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is mutating ('Replace'), requires ownership ('you own'), and has signing requirements shared with publish_app. However, it does not clarify what happens to the old listing, what a successful response looks like, or what the signing rules actually entail without consulting another 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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and the critical signing-rule cross-reference are both present. Every word contributes to understanding or invocation.

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 minimally viable for a four-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields. However, there are no annotations and no output schema, so the description leaves return behavior, error cases, and the concrete signing-rule details implicit. It is adequate but not 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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that signing rules match publish_app, which loosely relates to the payload and signature parameters but lacks detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('a listing you own'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_app (creating/publishing) and delete_app (removing) through the replacement and ownership framing.

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 when a caller needs to replace an existing listing they own, but it does not explicitly contrast this with publish_app or other alternatives. It references publish_app only for signing rules, not as a usage-routing alternative.

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