baby-age

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It describes the tool as a computation returning various age-related data, implying no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation or any authorization 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?

The description is a single sentence that quickly communicates the tool's purpose and output, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient but could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Considering the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively lists all computed outputs (years, months, weeks, days, totals, zodiac sign, milestones, special dates). However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., object structure) which would aid an agent in parsing the result.

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 a clear description for the birthday parameter. The description does not add new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation of 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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'baby's exact age', and lists all computed outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_milestone_dates and get_zodiac_sign by combining their functionalities.

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 recommends using this tool for any 'how old is the baby' question instead of manual computation, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude cases where sibling tools might be more appropriate, but the guidance 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 bears the full burden. It discloses the output fields (dates, days_left, reached) and suggests a read operation via 'get', but does not affirmatively state non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits.

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, directly stating the function and a suggested use case. Every sentence contributes value, and no extraneous content is present.

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 adequately covers the input and outlines the output (dates, days_left, reached) despite lacking an output schema. It mentions all 25 milestones and the three output fields, making it sufficiently complete 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'birthday', so the description adds little beyond restating that a birth date is needed. The baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 exact calendar dates for 25 baby milestones from a birth date, specifying the data returned (days_left, reached status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_baby_age and list_milestones.

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 a clear usage hint ('Use this to add baby milestones to a calendar') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools. Nonetheless, the context implies its specific purpose.

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 full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (element, nickname, date range, guide link) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. Basic transparency is achieved but could be more 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, concise sentence of 19 words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary elaboration, making every word count.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and expected outputs. It mentions four output attributes, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capability, though the exact format is left unspecified.

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 full description coverage (100%) for the single 'birthday' parameter. The description adds a valuable constraint ('not in the future') that is not present in the schema, thus enhancing comprehensibility beyond the structured definition.

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 the Western zodiac sign for a birth date, along with additional details like element, nickname, date range, and guide link. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on age or milestones.

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?

While the description implies usage for zodiac sign queries, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The sibling context makes the intended use somewhat clear, but no direct advice 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output structure and that it's a read-only list of known types. It adds context about the fixed 25 count, but could mention whether the list is exhaustive or dynamic.

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 key purpose, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the count, and references a sibling tool for next steps. No 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?

No parameters, baseline 4. Description clarifies that no input (like birth date) is needed, adding meaning beyond the empty 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 lists 25 baby milestone types with fields (name, emoji, day offset, group). It distinguishes from the sibling get_milestone_dates by noting that tool converts to real dates.

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 'No birth date needed' and 'Use get_milestone_dates to turn these into real dates,' giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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