CMeIn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: data is fetched live rather than cached, no account is required, and the return includes the text plus a link. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits of the returned text.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence enumerating nine topics with semicolons, which is dense and hard to scan. The content is largely justified for topic selection, but the structure could be a list rather than one run-on line.

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-enum-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned (page text plus link), freshness guarantees, and no-auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum is structurally complete, so the baseline is met. The description goes further by explaining the content behind each enum value (e.g. 'refund' covers when a refund applies, the time limit, and how to ask), which meaningfully improves topic selection beyond the schema's terse 'Which page to read.'

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 verb (reads) and resource (CMeIn's own information pages) and enumerates exactly what each topic contains, so the agent knows what it will get. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from siblings like cmein_pricing or see_examples, which appear to overlap with the 'pricing' and 'examples' topics.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'read live at request time, so terms, policies and open roles are current rather than remembered' line hints at when freshness matters. There is no explicit when-to-use versus cmein_pricing/see_examples, and no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-fetch character are partly covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that figures are read from a live pricing page at request time (freshness/latency implication) and that no account is required.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the content enumeration front-loaded and the behavioral caveats following. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, and the auth requirement. It stops short of describing the return shape (e.g., how packs are listed), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no schema gaps to compensate for.

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?

It names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (credit packs and prices, credits spent per generated photo, absence of a subscription), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. This is clearly separable from siblings like my_credits, which concerns the caller's own balance rather than catalog pricing.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent should call this when it needs pricing information. The one real guideline given is the precondition 'No account needed', but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative among the 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?

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningfully beyond that: this sends a real message to a real person, a reply comes back by email, no account is required, and human confirmation should precede the call. That consequence and consent framing is not derivable from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then usage conditions and the refund pointer, with no wasted sentences. It runs slightly long across five clauses and the refund sentence is tangential to the call itself, but each sentence still 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return path ('gets a reply by email'). Together with the confirmation requirement and the refund alternative, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents email, subject, message, and name with constraints. The description only reinforces 'needs an email address to reply to'; it adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Sends a message to CMeIn's support inbox') plus the outcome ('gets a reply by email'), which no sibling provides. An agent can distinguish this from cmein_info, request_credits_back, and the search tools immediately.

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 enumerates when to use it (unanswered questions, order problems, anything needing a person), when not to (only when someone asked to be put in touch; show them the text first), and routes a specific alternative case ('for a refund of unspent credits, see cmein_info("refund")'). This is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real context beyond them: the catalogue is account-filtered, a 'scenes:read' permission is required, and generation is out of scope for this tool. Missing details like pagination or result shape, but the added auth and scoping facts are substantive.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by usage and permission. No filler, though the middle sentence is slightly redundant with the opening 'filtered to the ones that suit this account'.

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 should hint at what comes back; it loosely says it 'finds the scenes that fit' but does not characterize the returned objects. Given a simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool, the definition is otherwise sufficient to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (q, limit) are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only mild semantic color — that q is a natural-language 'what the person is after' free-text query — without format or syntax 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Searches CMeIn's scene catalogue', quantified as 'over 4,500 settings' and scoped to 'filtered to the ones that suit this account'. It is clear and concrete, but never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling find_video, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use it to recommend one' and 'describe what the person is after and it finds the scenes that fit'. It also draws a useful boundary ('Generating the photo itself is done in the app'). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or pointing at find_video for video needs.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns titles, links and view counts, the catalog is limited to the 15 most recent films, and no account is required. That is real context beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences describing the films' themes and the generated-character gimmick are marketing color that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Useful constraints (15-film limit, no account) are buried at the end.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers return shape (titles, links, view counts), catalog scope, and auth requirements, which is close to what an agent needs. Only the relationship to the sibling find_scene tool remains unaddressed.

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 parameters (about, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the empty-string case and the default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Finds one of CMeIn's short films by what it is about.' An agent can tell what it retrieves and the matching criterion. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling find_scene, which sounds closely related.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Covers the 15 most recent films only' and 'No account needed' give context for when it works, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from sibling tools such as find_scene.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the required 'credits:read' permission and by characterizing the return value as a photo-equivalent estimate, which an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource, then the interpretation, then the permission requirement. No filler and nothing that could be dropped without losing 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?

For a no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, whose data it returns, and the permission prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact response shape or whether the photo estimate is approximate/exact beyond the word 'roughly'.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by scoping everything to the signed-in account.

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 resource (credit balance on the signed-in account) plus a useful interpretation of what it means (how many photos it buys). It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like request_credits_back, but it never explicitly names a sibling or contrast case the way a 5 would.

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 phrase 'on the signed-in CMeIn account' implies the usage context (no arguments, current user), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against neighbors such as cmein_pricing or cmein_info. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the images themselves are not returned, only metadata, and a specific permission is required. It does not mention pagination or ordering beyond 'most recent'.

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 resource and scope, then the constraint that images stay in the app and the permission requirement. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does it well: it tells the agent what fields each item yields (scene, finished, timestamp) and what is deliberately absent (image data). Permission prerequisite is also covered, leaving no gap for a one-parameter read 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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage (limit, default 10, max 25), so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about the limit's effect on the result set, which is the baseline-3 outcome for high-coverage schemas.

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 resource and scope: most recent photos generated on this account, plus the shape of what each entry contains (scene, completion status, time). It implicitly separates itself from search-style siblings like find_scene/find_video, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 one useful prerequisite — the 'photos:read' permission — but gives no when-to-use condition or comparison against siblings such as find_scene, see_examples, or find_video. Usage is implied by the account-scoped framing rather than stated.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the response shape (relevant passages with per-article links and a last-synced date) and the fact that no account is required, which agents would otherwise have to guess.

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, then the return format and access note. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so — passages, source links, sync date — while also covering the access requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (question, limit) are already documented with defaults and bounds in the schema. The description adds no syntax, phrasing, or constraint detail beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — answering a question about dating-profile photos — and enumerates the topical scope (lighting, angles, backgrounds, expressions, app behavior) plus the source (CMeIn's published articles). This clearly separates it from the unrelated siblings (find_video, my_credits, cmein_pricing).

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?

Gives a clear context for use: ask a photo-related question and get passages from published articles, with 'No account needed' signaling it is freely invocable. It doesn't name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling overlaps enough to require routing 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 only declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the request is handled asynchronously by a human via email, the tool does not itself decide the refund, and it requires the 'support:write' permission.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and its trigger are front-loaded, followed by the outcome mechanics and the permission requirement. Every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover the side-effect profile, the description covers purpose, trigger, handling path, and permission. It could add what the agent gets back after submission (e.g., a request id or confirmation), but nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (reason, generationId) are documented in the schema, including the pointer to my_generations. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('opens a request for credits to be returned') plus the triggering condition ('when a generated photo did not look like the person'), so an agent can tell this apart from my_credits or my_generations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling contact_us, which is a plausible alternative for reaching human support.

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 a clear use condition tied to bad photo output, and notes that a human answers by email and that the refund policy decides the outcome. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for other support needs.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description still contributes the auth-relevant fact that no account is needed and characterises the result as a visual gallery grouped by scene. It says nothing about freshness or how the listed accounts relate to output, keeping it below 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool surfaces and followed by the use case and access requirement. Each sentence earns its place, though the clause listing accounts and scene count could be tightened.

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 carries the burden of describing the return content and it does so: gallery by scene, accounts, scene count. Combined with the annotations covering read-only and open-world behaviour, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though grouping/ordering of the gallery is 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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameters for the description to disambiguate.

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 concrete resource — the examples gallery organised by scene — plus the secondary returns (accounts where work is posted, scene count). That is more than a restatement of the title and lets an agent picture the payload. It stops short of naming a sibling to differentiate from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition: use it when someone wants to judge results for themselves rather than read about them, which implicitly separates it from informational siblings like cmein_info or photo_advice. 'No account needed' adds a usable precondition. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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