Fable 5 Agent

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds context beyond annotations: 'does not run the model' and 'does not require a bearer token.' This enriches the behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, description lists all return values explicitly. Tool is simple; this is sufficient. Could mention price unit, but not necessary.

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?

No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by listing returned fields (identity, price, endpoint, URL), compensating for lack of output 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Returns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings (create run, get run result, get run status) by stating it is metadata, not a run operation.

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 explicitly states when to use: when you need agent info without running the model, and it does not require a bearer token. It implies not to use when you need to run a model, which differentiates from 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?

Annotations are all false, so no hints from there. The description adds transparency by noting it's asynchronous and may consume paid capacity, which are important behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, each serving a purpose. The first explains the action, the second provides follow-up steps. No unnecessary 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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior and next steps. It could mention what the initial call returns (likely an ID) to be fully complete, but overall it's sufficient.

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 already documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool queues an authenticated asynchronous task, which is a specific action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning polling with agentfarm_get_run_status and reading results with agentfarm_get_run_result.

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 warns that it can consume paid model capacity, implying caution. It also tells the user to poll and then read results, providing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative approaches.

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. The description adds value by specifying that authentication is required and what the return includes (final summary, artifact URLs). No contradictions.

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

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

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and key outputs. No redundant words or fluff.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. However, lacking an output schema, it could mention the structure of the 'final summary' or format of artifact URLs.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description ('AgentFarm run identifier.') is sufficient. The tool description does not add additional detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb ('Returns'), the output ('final summary and artifact download URLs'), and a condition ('authenticated run'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like agentfarm_get_run_status (status) and agentfarm_create_run (creation).

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 phrase 'final summary' implies use after a run completes, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like agentfarm_get_run_status. However, the sibling names provide enough context for an AI to infer.

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 description adds limited behavioral context (returns status values). It mentions 'authenticated run' but does not elaborate on error handling or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 conveys all essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the key verb and result types.

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 status check with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum. However, it lacks details about the return format, potential error cases, or additional fields (e.g., timestamps). Slightly incomplete given the lack of an output schema.

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% with run_id described as 'AgentFarm run identifier.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning; it only mentions 'authenticated run' which is context but not parameter-specific. 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?

The description clearly states it returns one of four statuses (queued, running, succeeded, failed) for an authenticated run. It specifies the resource (run) and verb (get status), and distinguishes from siblings like agentfarm_get_run_result and agentfarm_create_run.

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 checking run progress but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., agentfarm_get_run_result for results). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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