good_wook

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive effects, or authentication needs. It only states the result type.

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 extra words. Every part is necessary.

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 two parameters undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the optional include_related parameter.

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 the parameters 'date' or 'include_related', leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 retrieves a Phish setlist for a given date in YYYY-MM-DD format. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like search_shows or random_show.

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 when a specific date is known, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like search_shows or latest_show.

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 provide behavioral context. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It also fails to explain what 'notable' means or how results are ordered.

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 unnecessary words, but it is too terse and lacks structure. It could benefit from being slightly longer to cover key points.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, what constitutes a 'notable' jam, or how the limit parameter behaves.

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 explain parameters. The 'song' parameter is partially explained via 'optionally filtered to one song', but the 'limit' parameter is not described at all beyond its default.

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 returns 'Notable jams from the Phish.net jam charts' with optional filtering, which clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like song_history or get_setlist by specifying the jam charts source.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It only mentions optional filtering but lacks context like prerequisites or complementary 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?

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, what happens if no shows exist, or if it requires any authentication. The word 'setlist' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 only five words, which is too brief. While it avoids verbosity, it omits essential details like the optional parameter and any use context, making it under-specified rather than 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 presence of a parameter (include_related) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter or the return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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?

The input schema has one parameter (include_related) with no description, and the tool description does not explain what it does. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 indicates the tool returns the setlist of the most recent show. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_setlist (which requires a specific show ID) and search_shows (which searches all shows). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making the action slightly vague.

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 get_setlist or search_shows. The description simply states what it does without context about prerequisites, limitations, or when it is 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Describes it as health check and manifest, but doesn't detail side effects, auth, or return structure. Adequate for a simple ping.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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 ping tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects (health and capabilities). Missing return format details, but acceptable given 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?

No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info, but that's acceptable.

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's a health check and manifest, with distinct verb+resource. Differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific show data.

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?

Implied usage for checking tool availability and capabilities, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'random' and 'full setlist' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the selection is truly random, if there is any caching or repeat behavior, or if any setup is required. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters. It conveys the core purpose without 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain the output format or any constraints, which could be helpful for an agent. Siblings exist but no guidance is provided.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 a random Phish show with its full setlist, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_setlist (specific show) and search_shows (filtered). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like latest_show or this_day_in_history. The description only implies use for random discovery.

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 fully disclose behavior, but it only states the search criteria. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if results are paginated, what happens with no matches, or any 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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could be slightly expanded without losing 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain optional parameters (limit, include_related), result format, or search behavior (e.g., exact match, partial match, sorting).

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 covers three parameters (year, city, venue) but omits limit and include_related. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should explain all parameters; failing to do so leaves gaps for the agent.

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 'Find shows by year, city, and/or venue name,' specifying the verb 'find' and the resource 'shows' with three search criteria. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_setlist (single show) or venue_info (venue details), though it does not explicitly contrast with each sibling.

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 search_shows versus other tools such as get_setlist (for a specific show), latest_show (for the most recent), or upcoming_shows (for future events). The description lacks 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the ordering (most recent first) but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or whether it is a read-only operation. The minimal description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise. It is a fragment lacking essential verb and context, which reduces its utility.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the effect of parameters like 'limit' or 'include_related', or any corner cases. The tool cannot be reliably used based on this description 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?

The input schema has three parameters (song, limit, include_related) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no information about these parameters, their meanings, or constraints. This forces the agent to guess or rely on the schema defaults.

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 'Every time a song has been played (most recent first)' indicates it returns play history for a song, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-based statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'song_stats' or 'get_setlist' but lacks specificity on the format (list, count, etc.).

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'song_stats' or 'search_shows', nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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 disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not stated.

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, which is concise, but it is not front-loaded with the main action. It lists stats but omits parameter details, making it somewhat incomplete.

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 output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and integration. It only states what stats are returned.

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 the parameters 'song' or 'include_related'. It adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 provides stats for a song and lists specific fields (times played, debut, last played, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'song_history' and 'jam_chart' by enumerating the returned stats, but does not explicitly differentiate use cases.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical 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?

The description states it returns shows across years but does not disclose behavior of the optional 'include_related' parameter or any output details. Without annotations, the description only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose with no unnecessary text.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description fails to explain the behavior of 'include_related', return format, or any constraints like pagination. The tool's functionality is only partially described.

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 only explains the range for month and day, ignoring the 'include_related' parameter entirely. This 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 tool returns shows played on a given calendar day across years. It specifies the verb 'shows played' and the resource 'given calendar day', but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_shows or song_history.

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 querying historical shows on a specific date but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_shows or jam_chart. No exclusions or alternative suggestions 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how results are ordered, pagination behavior, or what 'announced' means regarding cancellation status. The parameter 'include_related' is left unexplained.

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 (one sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of missing crucial details. It earns a middle score for conciseness but lacks 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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and mention ordering or scope. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'include_related' parameter. The agent cannot infer what 'related' entails, leading to potential confusion.

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 this tool returns announced upcoming shows with dates on or after today, distinguishing it from siblings like 'latest_show' or 'search_shows'. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list').

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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 the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns metadata and a play count but does not mention whether it is read-only, required permissions, error handling for unknown venues, or the structure of the output.

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 it is more of a phrase than a structured explanation. It front-loads the purpose but lacks any structure or additional details. Every word earns its place, but it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what metadata is returned, the return format, or how the play count is determined. The agent lacks information to fully understand or use 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 'venue' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not clarify what the parameter expects (e.g., venue name, ID, format, case sensitivity), leaving the agent uninformed about how to provide valid input.

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 venue metadata and a count of Phish performances at that venue, which is a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_setlist or jam_chart by focusing on venue-level data. However, 'venue metadata' is somewhat vague, missing what specific metadata is included.

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 its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The description simply states functionality without context for selection.

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