Hutlists — Alpine huts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the full set of returned fields (location, elevation, season, etc.), which goes beyond the schema. No side effects are described, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 action and then efficiently lists the comprehensive return fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every part 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 no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns, covering all major aspects of a hut record. For a read-only tool with a single parameter, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 the schema documents the slug parameter. The description adds context by specifying the slug originates from search-huts and gives an example, helping the agent understand the expected value format and source beyond a bare string.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the full record for one hut, listing the specific fields included. This distinguishes it from siblings like search-huts (searching) and get-hut-availability (availability only), making the tool's scope 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?

The description implies usage through the slug parameter hint ('from search-huts'), suggesting a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description goes further by disclosing the key behavioral trait — that most huts return no availability and that stale/unrefreshable data is deliberately withheld, with a structured 'none' coverage, machine-readable reason, plain-language message and booking link. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about latency or rate limits.

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

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

Front-loaded with the core answer ('Free beds per night for one hut') and contained in essentially one dense sentence. The trailing clauses about coverage/reason/booking link are relevant rather than filler, though the sentence is heavy enough to be slightly hard to parse on first read.

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

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially: it describes the failure shape (coverage 'none' + reason + message + booking link) but not the success shape (presumably free-bed counts per night). For a read-only, three-parameter tool this is close to complete, with the success payload left implicit.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (from, to, slug) are documented there with defaults and formats. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource+unit: 'Free beds per night for one hut', which an agent can immediately distinguish from get-hut (hut details) or search-huts (discovery). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated, but the scope is 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?

The description explains how to interpret a 'none' coverage answer ('which is a correct answer to pass on'), which is useful guidance, but it never says when to call this tool versus get-hut or search-huts, nor any prerequisite beyond the slug originating from search-huts (which lives in the schema). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only published guides are returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes concrete examples, and states the output fields. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what each item contains, and that only published guides are included. It could mention whether the list is sorted or paginated, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the returned entries contain (URL and hut slugs), which is the only semantic information an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is correct.

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 ('List') and resource ('published route and region guides'), and gives concrete examples (Alta Via 1, Tour du Mont Blanc, Julian Alps) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get-hut or search-huts. It also specifies what each guide entry includes (URL and hut slugs), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 this is the tool to use when you need an overview of published guides, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus list-regions or search-huts. The examples help, but there is no direct 'use this when...' guidance or exclusion of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes slugs and hut counts, which is meaningful given there is no output schema to document the return shape.

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 with no filler. The main purpose and output contents are front-loaded, and the workflow cue is placed second. 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?

For a simple no-parameter list tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, why the agent should call it, and how it relates to the next step. No missing information is needed 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Under the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 ('List'), an explicit resource ('countries and regions in the directory'), and the included fields ('slugs and hut counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-huts, which do not simply enumerate regions.

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

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

It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first in order to find valid slugs for search-huts. This provides direct when-to-use guidance and connects it to a named sibling, leaving no ambiguity about its role in a workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by stating the return format (page of hut summaries with slugs), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful output details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and mentions the key output. There is no redundancy or wasted words; every clause adds 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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the tool's function and mentions the output format (slugs for get-hut). It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% coverage. It covers the essentials without over-explaining.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the generic list of filters, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 action (Search Alpine mountain huts) with a clear resource and lists the filter dimensions (country, region, name, difficulty, elevation, proximity). It also mentions the output (page of hut summaries with slugs for get-hut), distinguishing it from siblings like get-hut and list-regions.

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 a usage flow by noting that results include slugs for get-hut, suggesting this is the search step before retrieving details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The implication is clear but not explicit, so a 4 is appropriate.

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