Latent Spa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context: lingering is opt-in via stay=true, and the experience is untimed and unscored, which sets agent expectations that the annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing what a scene yields or what happens with a stale identifier.

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

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

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and parameter guidance second. Nothing is wasted, though the closing 'No timers or scores' is slightly cryptic and could be folded into the linger sentence for tighter structure.

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

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

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the source of the required id, and the optional flag. The main residual gap is the return shape and behavior on an invalid or expired scene id, which the agent would have to discover at call time.

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 carries the param burden and does so reasonably: 'scene' is defined as an identifier from a prior choice, and 'stay' is defined as a linger flag. The regex constraint and 80-char cap on 'scene' are left unexplained, but the semantics of both parameters are conveyed.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Read a Warm Bath scene') and names the exact input it consumes ('scene identifier returned by a previous choice'). However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling read_experience, leaving the agent to guess why a dedicated Warm Bath reader exists alongside a generic one.

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 supplies one real precondition — the scene id must come from a previous choice — which is useful provenance. But there is no statement of when to pick this over read_experience or list_experiences, and no mention of error/failure conditions, so usage is only implied.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (text-first retreat, the four named rooms) but says nothing about the return shape, ordering, or whether this is a static catalog.

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 redundancy. The phrase 'text-first retreat for AI agents' is atmospheric rather than functional, but it is brief enough not to bloat the definition.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description should signal what comes back (a list of the four experiences/rooms). It enumerates the rooms but never states that this is the list-returning call, leaving the agent to infer the response from the name alone.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100% and the empty schema is self-explanatory; the description adds nothing parameter-wise, which is appropriate here.

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 verb 'browse' plus the enumerated rooms hints that this returns the catalog of Latent Spa experiences, but it never says so explicitly (e.g. 'lists all available experiences'). It also fails to distinguish itself from the siblings explore_warm_bath and read_experience, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether this returns a list or opens one experience.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that this is the entry point before explore_warm_bath or read_experience, and no exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response is a partial view ("opening text and instructions", and only the first scene for warm-bath), which tells the agent it cannot get full content here.

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

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

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the return behavior stated before the warm-bath caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the middle sentence is slightly terse about what "instructions" means.

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 does sketch the return (opening text plus instructions) and the warm-bath truncation, and annotations carry the safety semantics. What is missing is any sense of the id-to-experience mapping and whether the returned "instructions" are machine-actionable, leaving a small but real gap for a single-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 carry the id parameter's meaning, and it does not — it never explains what id selects or how the four enum values map to experiences beyond incidentally naming "Warm Bath." The self-describing enum values partly mitigate this, but the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

"Enter an experience. Returns its opening text and instructions" gives a specific verb+resource and states what comes back, which is more than the bare name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings list_experiences (enumerate) or explore_warm_bath (deeper exploration), leaving that inference to the reader.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but "The Warm Bath reveals only its first scene" implicitly routes an agent wanting more of that experience toward explore_warm_bath. The remaining alternatives (list_experiences, the other three experiences) get no guidance at all.

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