gymflexa

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns at most fourteen opening-hour rows and explicitly excludes many field categories, which helps set response expectations beyond 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?

Three concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the return contents, and the exclusions without filler. Key scoping information is front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 a simple single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It adds important constraints like the maximum number of opening-hour rows and the full exclusion list, completing the context needed to set expectations.

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 already documents gymId as an owned GymFlexa gym id with a regex pattern, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that the gym is tenant-owned, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting the safe scheduling configuration for one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym. It also lists the exact returned fields and explicitly names what it excludes, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_gym_payment_summary or get_gym_availability.

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 by focusing on scheduling configuration and excluding other domains like payment, billing, and members, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus a sibling or when to avoid it. The scoping is clear enough for inference, but no alternative tools are named.

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, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it specifies the exact window, states that only daily slot counts and first/last bookable times are returned, and explicitly lists what the tool never reveals. This is strong transparency.

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

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the window and explicit exclusions. Every sentence 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?

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining context: the fixed window, the output scope, and privacy exclusions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter gymId, which is already described as an 'Owned GymFlexa gym id'. The description reinforces that it is a tenant-owned gym but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Summarize bookable capacity') and resource ('one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym') with a precise time window, making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it never identifies members, appointments, trainers, or unavailability reasons, which separates it from schedule or payment 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?

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: for capacity summaries over the fixed window for a single tenant-owned gym. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and output constraints imply the appropriate context well.

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 idempotentHint=true. The description goes further by explicitly stating it 'cannot charge, refund, retry, settle, transfer, or move funds' and lists what data it excludes. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, covering non-mutating constraints and scope boundaries. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are not critical for this type of tool. The description adds value without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the primary purpose and the range limit; the second lists exclusions and non-capabilities. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. The structure is optimal for an agent to quickly grasp scope.

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 an output schema, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, constraints, exclusions, and non-capabilities. It does not explicitly mention error handling or auth requirements, but for a read-only summary tool with strong annotations and output schema, this is adequate. A 4 reflects that it's thorough but could include explicit 'use when...' guidance to tie into usage guidelines.

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 gymId, endTime, and startTime with clear descriptions. The description adds the 'at most 31 days' range constraint, which is not in the schema and directly affects parameter usage. It also reinforces that the gym must be owned by the tenant. These additions give the agent useful context beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('recorded payment counts, status counts, and amount totals by currency') for one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gym_schedule_summary and show_gym_overview by explicitly listing exclusions (payment ids, processor data, etc.). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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

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

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and its constraints (read-only, at most 31 days, excludes sensitive data). It implicitly tells when to use it (when a payment summary is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead of Y'. The exclusions hint at boundaries, but there's no direct guidance on choosing between this and get_gym_schedule_summary or show_gym_overview. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the date-range cap of at most 31 days, grouping by UTC day, and an explicit privacy/scope guarantee that it never returns member, trainer, service, attendance, or other participation details. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in 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?

Two direct, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and range limit; the second lists exclusions. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a read-only aggregation tool with full parameter schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety, this description covers scope, data returned, exclusions, and range limit. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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

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

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint 'over a range of at most 31 days', which constrains startTime/endTime and the 'one tenant-owned' requirement for gymId, adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (count), resource (scheduled records), scope (one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym, date range), and explicitly declares what it never returns, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gym_availability or get_gym_payment_summary.

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

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

It clearly implies usage for aggregate administrative counts over a date range and explicitly lists what it never returns, guiding agents away for detailed data. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of 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, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a bounded/paginated list, scoped to the authenticated user's organization, and returns a deliberately limited field set. This helps the agent set expectations without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope, then details the return fields and exclusions. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or 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 two-parameter list operation with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description is complete. It specifies scope, pagination, field projection, and explicitly states what is absent, which is sufficient for an agent to call 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 100%, with both 'limit' and 'cursor' already documented in the input schema. The tool description mentions 'bounded page' but does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('gyms'), and a clear scope ('in the authenticated user's GymFlexa organization'). It also defines the return projection as 'gym id needed for follow-up reads plus name, currency, locale, and edit time', and explicitly excludes other data categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target detailed gym, payment, schedule, or service information.

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 establishes clear context: use this to list a bounded page of gyms and obtain IDs for follow-up reads. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion of organization, address, contact, billing, integration, and member data implies when not to use this tool. This is slightly short of a fully explicit 'use X instead' guideline.

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, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by enumerating exactly which fields are returned and which are excluded (service ids, member history, notes, etc.). The 'bounded page' phrasing also signals pagination behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler; the core capability and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion list earns its place by setting expectations about omitted data.

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 list tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description plus annotations cover purpose, scope, included/excluded fields, and safety. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and gymId are already fully documented. The description's 'bounded page' wording lightly reinforces pagination but adds no parameter-level detail 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource (service-catalog names, prices, edit times) plus scope (one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_gyms and get_gym by specifying what is included and excluded.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a bounded page of service-catalog data for a single gym, which is the relevant context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names and the 'one tenant-owned gym' scope make the intended use evident.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by naming the specific data classes it never reads or returns, including member records, appointments, payments, attendance/service history, trainers, notes, health details, and record linkages. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and scope; the second sentence lists exclusions that are directly relevant to correct selection. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's bounded nature immediately apparent.

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-parameter tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what the overview contains, what it never contains, and that it is bounded. An agent has enough information to decide whether this tool satisfies a request and to invoke it with the correct gymId. No critical operational gap is evident.

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%; the gymId parameter is already documented as 'Owned GymFlexa gym id to render' with a strict pattern. The description reinforces the 'tenant-owned' and 'render' semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Render a bounded administrative overview for one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating exactly which data categories are combined (safe gym metadata, aggregate schedule counts, service-catalog previews, bookable-capacity counts) and which it never touches, making its scope clear relative to the sibling get_* 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when a combined administrative overview is needed. It also provides useful negative guidance, explicitly stating it never returns member records, appointments, payments, or service history, which implies those needs should go to other tools. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context signals and exclusions are enough for an agent to route correctly.

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