Delve to Life

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the informational nature of the payload (combinations plus how to wear them), but says nothing about result size, ordering, or filtering fallback.

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 the content inventory front-loaded and the optional filter second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 usefully previews what comes back (twelve combinations plus four shortcuts) and how it behaves when filtered. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only lookup, missing only guidance on sibling selection.

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 single colour parameter is already documented as 'Optional colour to build around.' The description adds example values ('olive', 'navy', 'brown') and reinforces optionality, which is mildly additive but does not go beyond the schema in any substantive way.

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 (clothing colour combinations) and even quantifies the content: twelve combinations with wearing instructions plus four colour-wheel shortcuts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling suggest_outfit, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 one usage cue — optionally filter by a colour the user already owns — with example values. But it never says when to pick this over suggest_outfit or explain_dress_code, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating what the answer contains: a dress/skirt route, a trouser/suit route, what to avoid, and neighbouring codes — effectively describing the response shape in the absence of an output 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?

One front-loaded sentence that declares the purpose first and the output contents second, with no trailing filler. The long parenthetical code list is somewhat heavy but serves recall and does not bury the main clause.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the input domain, gives example values, and outlines the four parts of the answer. Only the absence of sibling routing and any input normalization note keeps it from being fully 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% for the single required 'code' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical list of codes (smart casual, black tie optional, etc.) broadens the agent's sense of accepted values beyond the schema's two examples, but adds no format or normalization guidance.

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 ('Explain what a dress code on an invitation means') and enumerates concrete code examples, so the agent knows exactly what is being interpreted. It implicitly separates itself from list_dress_codes and suggest_outfit by describing an explanation rather than a listing or an outfit proposal, but never names a sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('on an invitation'), giving the agent a reasonable context for when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement against the four sibling tools, so selection still requires inference.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable payload context the annotations cannot: the ordering of results, the one-line meaning per code, and that tips for vague invitations are included. It stops there, but for a parameterless read tool that is meaningful added value.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its ordering, then closes with usage guidance. No filler, no repetition of the title, and 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so (ordered ladder, one-line meanings, vague-invitation tips). Nothing an agent needs to call it is missing; only the precise entry count/format is left unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mentions of ordering and per-entry content are about output rather than inputs, which is fine given 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 states a specific resource and ordering ('dress-code ladder from least to most formal, casual → white tie') plus what each entry contains. It implicitly distinguishes itself from explain_dress_code ('orient before explaining one'), though it never names the sibling explicitly, keeping it short of a 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 clear when-to-use conditions: 'Use to compare codes or orient before explaining one.' This routes the agent toward this tool for scanning/comparison and away from the single-code explainer. No explicit when-not statement 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by disclosing the return payload ('titles, URLs, summaries and quick answers'), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention result limits or ranking behavior, keeping it short of a 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical topic list is long but earns its place by scoping retrieval, and the return statement is appended efficiently. No filler sentences.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, which is the key gap it must fill. Remaining omissions are minor: the 'limit' parameter behavior and how queries are matched are unstated.

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 0% for two parameters. The description clarifies 'query' semantically by tying it to a natural-language question, but the 'limit' parameter (default 3, max 5) is never explained in the description or schema, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('Delve to Life style guide') and enumerates the topical scope (dress codes, weddings, funerals, interviews, weather, colour, proportion, screen-inspired style). This lets an agent distinguish it as a broad topical search versus siblings like explain_dress_code or list_dress_codes, though it never names those alternatives 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?

Usage is implied by 'for a question' — an agent can infer this is the free-text lookup path — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing toward the more specific sibling tools (colour_combinations, suggest_outfit, list_dress_codes). Guidance is adequate but must be inferred.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: it discloses the shape of the output (five pieces with notes, a three-colour palette, a rationale, and an adjust link) and a behavioural constraint on sourcing ('clothes people usually already own').

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, both doing work: the first states what is built and from what inputs, the second states what comes back. It is front-loaded on the action and contains no filler or repetition of 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return contents in detail. The one remaining gap is the behaviour of the zero-required-parameter interface — no mention of defaults or of what a call with no arguments yields — but for a safe, idempotent read tool this is minor.

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 each of the three enum parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter names at a high level ('occasion, the weather and a style mood') without adding format or selection meaning beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Build a written outfit formula') and resource, and enumerates the three inputs it consumes (occasion, weather, mood). It is easily separable from explain_dress_code or search_guides, but it advertises a 'three-colour palette' while never clarifying how that differs from the sibling colour_combinations tool.

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 by the phrase 'for an occasion, the weather and a style mood' — an agent can infer the context but gets no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives. Notably, all three parameters are optional, yet the description never says what happens if an agent omits them, which is exactly the guidance needed here.

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