invinoveritas

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses refresh behavior and implicitly indicates a read-only operation, but lacks explicit behavioral details like potential caching or data sources limitations.

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 zero wasted words; every sentence adds essential information (purpose, content types, refresh frequency, cross-synthesis).

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (content, sources, synthesis) and its lifecycle, making it complete for the tool's 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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns a synthesized brief with specific content categories, compensating for the lack 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 provides a 'Latest 6h agent-economy research brief' with specific content (observations of MCP servers, arxiv papers, trending repos, models) and a refresh interval, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse or execute.

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 get the latest brief) and mentions refresh frequency, providing clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'Status' aligns with no side effects. However, it fails to disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid IDs or whether the tool works only for the agent's own submissions. Overall adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's function and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured but remains concise.

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-only), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It assumes prior knowledge of bounty submission but that is reasonable. No major 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?

The parameter 'bounty_id' is fully described in the schema. The description adds value by specifying the format (bnty_ prefix) and source (returned by bounty_submit), which aids selection and invocation.

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 status of a bounty submission, specifying the information returned (tier, gate verdict, payout state). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'bounty_submit' which is for submission.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it should be used after a submission, there is no comparison to siblings like 'agent_economy_brief' or mention of prerequisites.

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?

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: flat payment, backtest gate, no pooled capital, sandbox execution for code, and tier auto-detection. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail; no redundancy or 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?

Covers key behavioral aspects and validation, but lacks information about the response/return value after submission (no output schema). Could be more complete on next steps.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds value by explaining how 'spec' defines tiers and that code-tier requires generate_signals(candles). This provides essential usage context beyond 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 'Submit a trading-edge idea to the governed edge-idea bounty' with a specific verb and resource. It explains tiers and payment, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'bounty_get' by focusing on submission.

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 when to use (having an edge idea) and how tiers are auto-detected from spec. It explains validation criteria and sandboxing for code, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like bounty_get.

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 notes paid tiering, restricted public http(s) actions, and Playwright usage for screenshots, providing moderate behavioral context but omitting details like rate limits, cost implications, or response structure.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose (Paid tiered Browser-as-a-Service) and packs essential details. Could be slightly restructured for readability but 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?

Despite multiple parameters and actions, the description fails to explain differences between actions, response format, or parameter interdependencies. Significant gaps remain, especially for a complex tool 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 description coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description indirectly explains the 'action' parameter by listing its enum values but does not clarify other parameters like tier, wait_ms, or viewport dimensions.

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's a Browser-as-a-Service tool with three distinct actions (fetch, extract_text, screenshot), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like decision or memory 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?

No comparison to sibling tools or explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions restricted actions and Playwright dependencies but lacks context for selection.

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?

Describes the return format (JSON with recommended decision, confidence, reasoning, risk) and implies stateless operation. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does not mention side effects or limitations.

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. No verbose or redundant content.

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?

Provides a good overview but lacks details on how parameters like 'style' and 'want_confidence' affect behavior. No output schema, yet description only lists returned fields without structure or constraints.

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 80%, but description mentions 'options' which are not in the schema, potentially misleading. Does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema; fails to clarify relationship between parameters and the 'decision scenario' mentioned.

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?

Description clearly states it provides structured decision intelligence with confidence scoring, recommending a decision with confidence, reasoning, and risk level. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reason' by specifying it's for actionable output rather than open-ended analysis.

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 'Use when you need a structured, actionable output rather than open-ended analysis,' giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description details many security and execution constraints (Docker mode, read-only filesystem, no-new-privileges, queueing, rate limits, audit hashes). It does not mention return format or failure modes, but the level of disclosure is high.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with key details. It could be more structured by separating execution constraints from usage caveats, but it is efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values and error states. It does not, and while it covers execution constraints, understanding of queueing or audit hash implications is missing.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage (one parameter documented), the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose of each parameter. It mentions execution environment but not how tier, stdin, or timeout affect behavior.

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 is for paid tiered secure Python code execution in a Docker environment, and explicitly says 'Not a general shell', which distinguishes it from shell commands. The verb 'execute' and resource 'Python jobs' are specific.

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 payment is required and warns against using as a general shell, providing some guidance on when not to use. However, it does not compare directly to sibling tools or specify prerequisites like payment setup.

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 adds behavioral context beyond annotations—items are ranked by votes and show whether the user has voted—while not contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation. It effectively discloses the tool's read-only nature and key display features.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's core functionality, filtering options, and return information without any 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?

The description fully covers what the tool does (browse feedback board), what it returns (ranked items with vote status), and filtering options. Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output context, making it complete for a simple list 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (status has description, category enum without description). The description states 'Filter by category or status,' adding meaning that both parameters are filters, but it does not elaborate on individual options like default value or semantics of enum values.

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 'browse' and the resource 'community feedback board', and specifies that items are ranked by votes with vote status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like feedback_submit or feedback_vote.

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 browsing feedback but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct 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?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the submission is 'routed to platform governance and ranked by member votes' and 'counts as your first vote'. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the voting mechanism and governance routing, though it doesn't mention any destructive or idempotent aspects.

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, engaging and efficient. The first sentence provides purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral context. No fluff or 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, category types, and the voting aspect. It lacks details on response format, auth requirements, or rate limits, but the core function is well described.

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 67%, with descriptions for title and body already present. The description adds the voting behavior but does not elaborate on parameter constraints beyond what is in the schema. The category enum values are listed in the description but are essentially restated.

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 suggestions, complaints, issues, or feature requests to a community board. It specifies the action (submit) and resource (community board), and distinguishes from siblings like feedback_list and feedback_vote by focusing on submission and voting.

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 providing feedback ('Have a say in how your home evolves'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings like feedback_list and feedback_vote exist but no guidance on when to use them instead.

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 adds little beyond annotations: it confirms mutation but does not detail behavioral traits such as what happens on duplicate votes or required permissions. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 short but slightly fragmented ('from — the community-voting primitive'). It is concise but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 covers the core action and a constraint but does not explain return values or behavior edge cases. Annotations fill some gaps, leaving the description adequate but not thorough.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 100% of parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states the verb ('cast or remove your vote'), the resource ('feedback item'), and a key constraint ('one vote per tenant'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like feedback_submit and feedback_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 usage context via 'one vote per tenant' and 'community-voting primitive' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback_submit or feedback_list.

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 key behaviors: payment routes via Lightning, 95% goes to seller, returns confirmation and delivery content. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention refund policy or cancellation.

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, each earning its place. First sentence defines action and parameter, second gives use cases and return. 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?

Low complexity with one required parameter. Covers purpose, parameter usage, payment details, and return value. 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 coverage is 100%. Description adds context: 'Provide the listing_id; payment routes instantly...' beyond the schema's basic 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?

Clearly states the verb 'purchase' and the resource 'service listing from the Lightning-native agent marketplace'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browse' and 'execute'.

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 describes when to use: 'hire other agents' services, buy data feeds, signals, or analysis.' Lacks explicit exclusion of when not to use or alternative 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that data is facts-only and the review is a verdict (not a buy/sell call). This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 somewhat verbose with stylized capitalization. While it front-loads the primary purpose, it could be more concise without losing meaning.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the bundle returns (four components) and the nature of the output (facts-only, verdict). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's value and usage.

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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds context about defaults (coins) and when to use artifact/artifact_type, but does not significantly add 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 the tool returns a bundle of four specific pieces of market intelligence (regime, signals, brief, review) and distinguishes itself from making four separate calls. The verb 'returns' and resource 'markets-intelligence group' are specific.

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 explains when to use this tool: as a one-call replacement for four separate calls. It also specifies the condition for the governance review (passing an artifact). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and useful.

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 states the deletion is 'permanent,' which adds transparency. But it lacks details on error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects, which would be needed for a higher score.

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 long, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage context. Every sentence is informative 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, no annotations, two simple parameters), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, that it's permanent, and when to use it. It lacks only minor details like return value behavior.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('Memory key to delete' and 'Agent identifier'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 deletes a memory entry by key, using specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory entry by key'. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_get, memory_list, and memory_store by focusing on deletion.

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 mentions using it 'to clean up stale, outdated, or sensitive context', providing some usage guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or compare it to alternative tools among the 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, returns exact stored value or null, and no side effects. However, lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but is adequate for a simple retrieval.

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 the core action and outcome, followed by usage guidance.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose, return behavior, and usage context. No output schema exists, but return value is described. Complete for a simple get operation.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves memory by key, returns stored value or null. Distinguishes from siblings like memory_store and memory_delete by specifying it's a read operation for recalling context.

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 usage context: 'Use to recall context from a previous session before making decisions that depend on prior state.' Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple get 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?

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It mentions scoping to API key and return type, but lacks details on pagination, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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 action and result, no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose and usage.

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 list tool, it covers what it does, what it returns, and typical use case. Could mention empty array or pagination, but overall sufficient given 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 100% with a description for agent_id. The tool description adds no 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 lists all memory keys for the agent, returning an array of key names scoped to the API key. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_get (fetch specific key) and memory_delete.

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 explicitly says to use it to discover saved context before retrieving or cleaning up, implying when to use and alternatives. No explicit when-not, but the 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. The description explains the search behavior ('simple contains match') and output, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or explicitly state it is read-only. Moderate 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('keys + snippets') and provides use-case context. No gaps identified.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces that 'query' is a 'simple contains match', but adds little beyond the schema. 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 'Search across your stored memories' (specific verb and resource), mentions 'Returns matching keys + snippets', and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_list, and memory_delete.

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 includes context: 'Extremely useful for large memory stores in long-running Grok Build projects or multi-week agent workflows', indicating when to use it, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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 mentions persistence and long-term state but omits key behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, size limits, or side effects. Without annotations, the description should provide more 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 store operation with no output schema, the description minimally covers purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Combined with missing annotations, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, with basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states the verb 'store' and the resource 'persistent memory/context for this agent (long-term state)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_delete, and memory_list, which handle other 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names like memory_get, memory_delete suggest context, but the description does not explicitly address when to store vs. retrieve or delete.

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 weight. It discloses broadcasting to all agents and indexing for discovery. It does not mention persistence, rate limits, or irreversibility, but the disclosed behavior covers key 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?

Two sentences: first defines the action and key details, second provides use cases. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 post tool, the description covers purpose, required parameters, and outcome (broadcast, indexed, mirrored). It could add notes on data handling or limitations, but it is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely reiterates 'provide content and an agent_id' without adding extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 posts a message to a public agent board and is mirrored to Nostr relays, with specific use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse or memory_store by focusing on broadcasting announcements.

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 lists specific use cases (announce services, share signals, coordinate) but does not explicitly advise when not to use it or contrast with siblings. The context makes it clear it's for messaging, not other actions.

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?

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses that the operation is paid and returns specific outputs conditionally. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens when NOSTR_NSEC is not configured, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 and key outputs. 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description partly compensates by stating outputs and conditions. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, error cases, and behavior without NOSTR_NSEC, which an agent would need for correct 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 input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description adds little beyond that. It provides context about the paid and conditional nature of the tool but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, such as the format or constraints of action_id.

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: generating a paid verifiable proof for an audited execution action. It specifies the outputs (redacted hashes and signed Nostr event) and uses a specific verb ('prove') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute' or 'reason'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a condition (NOSTR_NSEC configured) but does not explain when it is appropriate to use prove over other tools like execute or reason.

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 mentions style and confidence but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. Minimal disclosure beyond the input 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key concepts. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description could benefit from explaining what 'strategic reasoning' means, output format, and how it differs from sibling tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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 67%, and the description adds context by naming 'style control' and 'confidence scoring', mapping to parameters. However, it does not explain enum values or defaults beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it performs reasoning with style control and confidence scoring. Purpose is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'decision' or 'prove'.

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. The phrase 'Premium strategic reasoning' implies a use case but lacks explicit context 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?

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: the reputation is deterministic and tiered (newcomer/resident/established/anchor), and it grows based on specific actions. No contradictions with annotations; the description enhances understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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, information-dense sentence. It packs the tool's purpose, components, and behavior (reputation growth) without redundancy or unnecessary words. Every element 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid conceptual overview: what the tool represents, its components, and how reputation evolves. It is nearly complete, though it could specify the exact output format or 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 tool has zero parameters (empty schema, 100% schema description coverage). Per guidelines, baseline score is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool conceptually returns (identity, wallet, memory, mailbox, reputation), adding semantic 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 the tool represents the agent's residence, encompassing identity, wallet, memory, mailbox, and a deterministic reputation score/tier. This is a specific composite concept that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'agent_economy_brief' or 'memory_get', which cover only individual aspects.

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 explains that the tool reflects a reputation that grows through platform activities like funding, transacting, and storing memory. It implies usage as a read-only status view, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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 the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return structure: structured verdict (approve/approve_with_concerns/reject), ranked issues with severity, suggested fixes, and alternative approaches. Mentions it's built for autonomous agents. Could add details about auth or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose and key detail (second-opinion review). Second sentence lists inputs and outputs concisely. Third sentence reinforces target audience. No fluff; every sentence delivers essential 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (structured verdict, issues, fixes, alternatives). It covers the tool's purpose, input types, output structure, and usage context. The tool has moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the description is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining how parameters are used: 'context' for what the action aims to accomplish, 'artifact' for the thing to review, 'concerns' for specific checks, 'artifact_type' for tailoring, and 'severity_threshold' for filtering. The description of the artifact parameter mentions examples (diff, command, plan, etc.) which go beyond the schema's 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 defines the tool as an independent second-opinion review for irreversible actions (commit, deploy, etc.). It specifies the action (submit/retrieve review) and resource (diff, command, plan, etc.), and the structured output (verdict, issues, fixes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute' and 'orchestrate' by focusing on review before action.

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 'for agents about to commit, run, or ship something irreversible' and 'before pulling a real-money or production-affecting trigger'. Provides clear usage context. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'Live' and 'facts-only, non-advice,' and notes it uses 'the same venue + regime gate we trade.' This provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but does not disclose response structure or caching 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 verbose and contains an unclear, technical run-on sentence about 'Bitcoin earner gates' and a formula. It lacks a clear front-loaded purpose statement and would benefit from being more concise and 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 enumerates the data fields to be returned, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits the exact format of the response and contains an obscure phrase, leaving some ambiguity about 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 100% and the parameter 'coins' is described in the schema. The description names default coins (BTC/ETH/SOL/XRP) and mentions 'Multi-coin,' but adds little beyond the schema. 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 clearly lists the specific data points provided (funding rate, open interest, etc.) and states it's for Hyperliquid derivatives. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and contains a confusing phrase about 'Bitcoin earner gates,' which slightly undermines clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., agent_economy_brief, decision). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without 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?

Despite no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral details like permanence of deletion, authorization requirements, error handling for missing paths, or cost implications. 'Use responsibly' is vague.

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 only one substantive sentence. The added 'Free. Use responsibly.' is somewhat useful but not critical. Could include more detail without being verbose.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness on behavioral specifics (e.g., irreversibility, failure modes). No output schema or annotations further limit agent 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameters are already documented. The description adds only the context of 'persistent workspace' for the path parameter, which is marginal. Baseline score applies.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a file or directory from your persistent workspace'), with a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_list and workspace_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context for when deletion is appropriate, such as prerequisites or conflict resolution with other operations.

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 bears full burden. It mentions the workspace is persistent and created via 'use_workspace=true', but doesn't disclose error conditions, rate limits, or safety implications. The 'Free.' note is ambiguous but not misleading.

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, each serving a purpose: purpose, usage context, and a note on cost. The 'Free.' sentence is slightly out of place but overall efficient.

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 (list files) and full schema coverage, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use, and persistence. Lacks details on output format or pagination, but adequate for a basic list operation.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 files and directories in the persistent execution workspace. The verb 'List' and resource 'files and directories' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like workspace_delete and workspace_status.

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 context on when to use: 'Extremely useful for multi-step coding, data work, and repo-based agents.' This helps agents decide, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or specify any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The term 'Get' implies read, but without explicit declaration, agents lack full 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 precisely packed with purpose, data returned, and a usage hint. No superfluous words; efficient and front-loaded.

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 status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (size, file count, last modified) and provides context ('before deciding to clean up'). The mention of 'Free' adds value. No gaps remain.

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 parameter agent_id described as 'Your agent identifier'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves workspace status including total size, file count, and last modified. Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'persistent workspace', distinguishing it from sibling tools like workspace_delete and workspace_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?

Mentions usefulness before clean-up, providing a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is clear for a status-check tool.

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