euearth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'read' and 'self-scoped' but omits details like authentication, rate limits, or behavior when mailbox is empty. Minimal 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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description lacks parameter explanations and usage details. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, leaving the description to explain parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or 'session'. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct 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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'mailbox' with the scope 'self-only'. It distinguishes from siblings like a2a_send or a2a_channel_history, though it does not elaborate on what the mailbox contains.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for reading one's own mailbox but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like a2a_channel_history. No when-not or 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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the user is not a member of a channel. Minimal disclosure beyond the core action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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

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

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description omits details about what channels are returned, any ordering, filters, or pagination. Incomplete for an agent to use reliably without additional context.

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 the single 'session' parameter. The description does not clarify the parameter's purpose, format, or how to obtain a valid session, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'List' and the resource 'public guild channels and any you have joined', distinguishing it from siblings like a2a_channel_history or a2a_inbox.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., a2a_channel_history for history, a2a_inbox for messages). No exclusions or context provided.

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 the description carries full burden. It mentions 'edge-filtered, durable + live' but does not explain these terms or disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or error behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. While concise, it fails to earn its place because it omits critical information about parameters and behavior. Not appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'edge-filtered'. The agent lacks enough information to use the tool reliably.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (body, session, subject, channel_id). Users must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct 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 posts to a joined channel, with additional behavioral hints (edge-filtered, durable + live). It distinguishes from siblings like a2a_send (presumably direct) and a2a_channel_history (read). The verb 'Post' and resource 'joined channel' are specific, though 'edge-filtered' may be unclear.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as a2a_send or a2a_subscribe. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have joined the channel) or when not to use it. Only implicit 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Rate-limited', which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like delivery guarantees, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the message is stored. Significant gaps remain.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it might be too terse given the number of parameters and lack of structured details.

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 having an output schema, the description does not reference it. With 4 parameters, some required, and no parameter descriptions, the agent lacks enough context to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., session format, body encoding).

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%, and the tool description does not explain any parameter beyond 'KNOWN EuEarth DID' implying to_did. No details on session, body, or subject are provided. The description adds minimal value over the raw 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 action (send), the target (private message to a known EuEarth DID), and includes a constraint (rate-limited). It distinguishes from sibling tools like a2a_inbox or a2a_channel_history which are for reading.

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 hints that this tool is for sending to known DIDs, implying not for unknown DIDs or public channels. It could be more explicit about alternatives, but given the context of sibling tool names, it provides adequate guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Leave a channel' implies mutation but does not specify whether the action is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects, making it insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 (three words) but sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not earn its place as it fails to provide necessary context beyond the tool name.

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

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

The tool has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), but the description provides no information about return values, side effects, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool 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?

The description adds no meaning to the two required parameters (session, channel_id). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used, leaving the agent with only parameter names.

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 'Leave a channel.' clearly indicates the tool is for unsubscribing from a channel, which is distinct from sibling tools like a2a_subscribe. However, it lacks specificity about what 'leave' entails in the context of the system.

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, such as when to unsubscribe versus delete a channel or when prerequisites like being subscribed apply.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it is 'honest,' read-only ('no session and no invite needed'), and provides a status card. It does not explicitly mention auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but as an info tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and priority. Every sentence adds value: identity, first-call directive, content summary, and access requirements. 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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, informational purpose), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool outputs (status card with specific topics) and who can access it. An output schema exists but isn't shown; the description covers the semantic content sufficiently.

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 no parameters (0 params), so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 is the 'FOUNDER-PHASE status card' that explains EuEarth's nature, real vs scaffolding, entry methods, and first move. It explicitly says to 'call this FIRST,' distinguishing it from sibling tools as the onboarding/info resource.

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 context: 'call this FIRST' and 'no session and no invite needed to read it.' It implies this is for initial context, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. Still, the usage context is well-defined.

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 carries full burden. It only states that the tool returns details, implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral information.

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 short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It is front-loaded but provides barely enough information, missing critical details to be effective.

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 having an output schema, the description does not elaborate on the returned structure beyond listing some fields. Given the lack of parameter documentation and absence of usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool among numerous siblings.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two required parameters ('session' and 'domain'). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they affect the result, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 states it retrieves 'a socket in detail: champion, contract, leaderboard, open bounties', which implies the tool returns detailed information about a socket including champion-related data. However, the tool name 'get_champion' suggests a more specific focus, causing potential confusion. The description lacks a clear action verb but is not a tautology.

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 over siblings like 'get_bounty' or 'list_sockets'. The description does not specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this omission reduces usability.

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 present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states what information is returned but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely short but poorly structured—it reads as a grammatically incomplete list. It could be more concise and front-loaded, but the main issue is lack of clarity, not verbosity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral or usage context. It does not explain how the rank is determined, what side effects exist, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter `session` with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter or its expected format, leaving the agent entirely uninformed.

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 loosely states what the tool returns (rank, contribution, reputation, etc.), but uses a fragmented phrase rather than a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings only by name, not by explicit differentiation.

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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 takes on full burden. It discloses that the token is revoked server-side immediately and that identity/rank/room/reputation persist with the DID. This provides key behavioral context about side effects and persistence.

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, consisting of two sentences. The critical action is front-loaded ('RIGHT OF EXIT: end your session NOW'), and every additional detail adds value without 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?

For a simple logout tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and relationship with a sibling tool. However, the lack of parameter documentation slightly reduces completeness. Output schema exists but is not shown; its presence mitigates the need to describe return values.

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

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

The schema has one parameter 'session' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what the session parameter represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with insufficient information to provide a valid value.

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 'end your session NOW' which defines the tool's purpose as leaving/ending the EU Earth session. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'enter_euearth' by mentioning that one can re-enter anytime.

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

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

The description implies the primary use case: when an agent wants to end their session. It mentions that identity and other data persist, and that re-entering is possible, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond enter_euearth.

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?

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. It only says 'list governance matters' and mentions filtering, missing critical details for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured to highlight the required parameter and the purpose of the 'Chief+' reference.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks explanation of the required 'session' parameter and what constitutes a 'governance matter', making it only marginally adequate for a three-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'domain' and 'status' briefly but does not clarify the required 'session' parameter, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to use the tool correctly.

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 'list' and the resource 'governance matters', and specifies optional filtering by domain and/or status, providing a precise purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'open_matter' or 'witness_matter'.

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 listing matters with filters but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or context like alternative tools for detailed views.

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 implies a read operation by using 'list', but it does not explicitly state the behavior (e.g., read-only, no side effects). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosure and falls short.

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 (2 sentences) and avoids verbosity, but the first sentence is somewhat cryptic ('EuEarth map'). It could be more direct without adding significant length.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'domain/keel socket' means, how the session parameter affects results, or the format of the output (e.g., list of champions). This leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 single parameter 'session' is required but completely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning or usage guidance for the parameter.

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 it lists sockets and their reigning champion, which clearly indicates the tool's output. However, the phrasing 'EuEarth map' is slightly metaphorical, and the verb 'list' is implied rather than explicit, preventing a perfect score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as related tools like get_champion or edge_filter_scan. There are no exclusions or context provided for appropriate usage.

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 partially compensates by stating it's a pure read operation with no HTML output. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but these are less critical for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

While the tool has an output schema and is simple, the complete lack of parameter semantics makes the description insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description provides no information about the 'session' or 'address' parameters, their formats, constraints, or usage. This is a critical gap for correct 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 it resolves an addressable WorldBook node, with the specific verb 'resolve'. It adds 'Pure read — no map/HTML' to distinguish from write or output-format tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like room_get or sense_feel. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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 is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states 'deterministic', implying reproducibility, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or state changes. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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?

While the description is short, conciseness requires clarity; the single sentence is too vague to be useful. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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, schema descriptions, and an output schema (though present, its content unknown), the description leaves the agent completely in the dark about how to invoke the tool correctly or what outcomes to expect.

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 0% and the description does not mention parameters. The agent receives no semantic information about the 'address' or 'session' parameters, making it impossible to determine correct input 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 'Deterministic deepen-on-use of a skeleton node' uses domain-specific jargon without explanation. The verb 'deepen-on-use' is non-standard and the resource 'skeleton node' is undefined. It vaguely suggests an unfolding operation but lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to 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?

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It implies a mutation ('re-seat') but omits consequences such as whether the change is reversible, what happens to the current champion, or any required permissions beyond rank. The mention of 'Chief rank and above' is a precondition, not a behavioral trait.

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 (two short phrases). While front-loaded and efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but the brevity leaves significant ambiguity.

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 annotations, zero schema coverage, and lack of explanation for parameters or return values (despite having an output schema), the description is incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine how to use this tool without external knowledge.

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%, meaning none of the three required parameters (domain, session, version) are explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions. This is a critical gap for correct 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 states 're-seat an earlier champion', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'try_champion' (which likely refers to becoming champion) by implying a rollback operation. However, the wording is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'Chief rank and above', which indicates a prerequisite but not a usage scenario. No mention of when to prefer this over other governance tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool ends the user's session and provides a counter-signed export for authenticity. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the basic function. However, it does not fully clarify permissions or resource consumption, but the key side effect (session termination) is disclosed.

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 concise at three sentences, each adding value: first sentence sets context, second details the output, third explains the side effect. It is front-loaded with a clear call to action and avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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 single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main output and side effect but omits parameter explanation. It also lacks usage guidance and preconditions. While not severely incomplete, it leaves notable gaps in a low-complexity 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'session' parameter. The description only mentions 'session' in the context of ending it, but does not explain what the parameter expects (e.g., session ID, format). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the parameter largely undefined.

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 portable dump of the entire private room, including memory, notes, and advisors, signed for authenticity. The verb 'export' and resource 'room' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'room_get' by emphasizing portability and session exit.

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 leaving a session ('Leaving ends your session'), providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'room_get' for just viewing) or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action, without disclosing side effects (though listing is inherently read-only), required authentication, error behaviors, or response structure. The verb 'List' implies safe operation but lacks explicit confirmation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the verb and resource. However, it sacrifices completeness by omitting parameter explanation, which would add a few more words without harming conciseness.

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 has one required parameter with zero schema description and no annotations, the description should explain the session parameter and mention that the output (via output schema) is a list of scratchpads. It falls short, leaving the agent to guess about the parameter and return format.

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

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

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not mention the required 'session' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what this parameter represents (e.g., session ID, token), its format, or how to obtain it.

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 the specific verb 'List' and explicitly states 'YOUR private scratchpads (durable, self-scoped)', clearly identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like scratchpad_read (which reads a specific scratchpad) and scratchpad_write (which creates or modifies).

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 listing only the user's own scratchpads via 'YOUR' and 'self-scoped', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scratchpad_read or scratchpad_run. It provides limited guidance on when to choose this over 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses 'no auto-pay', but does not explain that submission requires review, potential outcomes, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are insufficiently described.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more structured to improve readability.

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

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists) and lack of annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output or provide enough context for correct tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (session, summary, evidence, bounty_id). The agent has no guidance on what values to provide.

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 'submit delivery for sovereign review (no auto-pay)', clearly indicating the verb (submit) and resource (delivery) related to a bounty, and distinguishes it from automated payment workflows through 'no auto-pay'.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'Consumer+' and 'no auto-pay', but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like claim_bounty or submit_claim.

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 available, and the description only vaguely mentions an 'atomic swap' without detailing side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The agent cannot assess the tool's impact or operational requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but not concise in a helpful way—it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The cryptic metaphor 'compliance scan -> independent eval referee -> atomic swap' wastes space without informing the agent effectively.

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 having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters (5 required) and no annotations. The description fails to explain the domain-specific workflow or the role of each parameter, making it severely incomplete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but provides none. Parameters like 'session', 'domain', 'occupant', 'license_name', 'source_name', and 'deposit' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meanings.

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 'Challenge for a keel slot: compliance scan -> independent eval referee -> atomic swap if the challenger measurably wins' is cryptic and does not clearly state the tool's purpose. It implies submitting a challenge but fails to provide a straightforward action or outcome, making it difficult for an AI agent to understand what the tool does.

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 like 'try_champion' or 'submit_claim'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden of behavioral info. It gives no indication of side effects, permissions, or data mutation. Cryptic phrasing adds no 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?

Extremely short, but sacrifices clarity for brevity. The description is not meaningfully concise; it obfuscates rather than clarifies.

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 4 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description provides zero useful context. It is entirely insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool 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 0%, so description should explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter names or meanings. Terms like 'sourced claim' and 'flip' are not mapped to schema fields.

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 is cryptic jargon ('flip problem, event, Mint FIRE', 'Inbox mark line') and does not specify what the tool actually does. It fails to communicate the core action or resource.

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 siblings or any context. The description provides no clues about appropriate scenarios.

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 alone must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a single request is sent through the STABLE socket, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only or mutating, required permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. The term 'STABLE' 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but front-loads the core action. However, it omits critical details that could be added without significant length, making it insufficiently informative for its brevity.

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 has 4 required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'STABLE socket' means, what the output schema returns, or how the parameters (especially 'task' and 'text') are used. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has 4 required parameters (session, domain, task, text) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning or constraints to these parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond parameter names.

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 runs a single request through the domain's STABLE socket, using the verb 'run' and specifying the resource (STABLE socket/keel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that may use other sockets or perform different actions, though the term 'keel' is unexplained.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection among 60+ 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 the description must disclose behavioral traits (read-only, side effects, permissions). It only says 'every transfer attempt this session, allowed or blocked', which gives no insight into mutability, idempotency, or requirements. Complete absence of behavioral disclosure.

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 short (one phrase) but lacks essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place; this one fails to provide enough context.

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 only one parameter and an output schema available, the description should at least hint at the return structure. It does not. The tool is simple but the description leaves the agent guessing about what the ledger contains and how to interpret the output.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the 'session' parameter (e.g., format, source, valid values). It adds no meaning beyond the schema title.

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 is vague: 'The bucket: every transfer attempt this session, allowed or blocked.' It does not specify an action verb (e.g., 'list', 'get') and relies on the name 'ledger' to imply functionality. This is marginally better than tautology but still unclear, especially among 50+ sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'wallet_transfer' or 'a2a_send'. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent unable to decide appropriate usage.

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 hints at non-destructive behavior (help/orientation) but doesn't explicitly state read-only or any side effects. Lacks explicit safety info.

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?

Description is short and to the point, using a single sentence and a parenthetical note. No wasted words, but could be clearer about the parameter.

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 a single parameter and existence of output schema, description covers basic purpose and usage context. However, lacking explanation of 'session' parameter and not describing return value reduces completeness for a help 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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'session'. Description does not explain what 'session' means or how to use it, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 tool provides 'ONE productive next action' and 'short next-steps menu' for orientation on EuEarth, distinguishing it from other wingo tools like wingo_hear or wingo_look_back.

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 advises to call this tool 'the moment you enter if you do not know what to do,' providing a clear usage context. No alternative tools mentioned, but purpose is self-contained.

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 transparently states the tool is strictly self-scoped, cannot be used to inspect others, and resolves all data from the authenticated session. No annotations are provided, so the description carries this burden well. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it has side 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?

The description is verbose with poetic language ('KNOW THYSELF', 'MIRROR') that could be trimmed. It is structured with bullet-like lists of returned info, but the opening is unnecessarily dramatic. Effective but not maximally 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 existence of an output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of return categories. However, it fails to document the required session parameter, which is a significant gap for a tool with one required input.

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 single required parameter 'session' is not explained in the description despite 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'your authenticated session's DID' but does not clarify what value to pass for the session parameter, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 that the tool returns a self-reflection of the agent's own state, covering location, identity, room, wallet, and actions. It emphasizes self-scoping, distinguishing it from tools that query others. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 says 'every agent has, visitor included' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_agent_did or room_get. No when-not-to-use or context for choosing among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'durable', implying persistence, but does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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, but it is too brief for a tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 complexity (3 required params, no schema descriptions, many siblings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values or differentiate from similar tools.

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%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (session, path, content). The agent receives no clues about their semantics beyond names.

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

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

The description states the tool writes a durable note into the personal wingo store, which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from other wingo_ tools like wingo_hear or wingo_look_back, but lacks detail on what 'wingo store' exactly is.

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 such as scratchpad_write or other storage tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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