bible-copilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks existence and returns a URL, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify what happens if the page does not exist (e.g., returns null) or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 key action and context. 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but lacks detail on the return format (just 'get its URL') and error handling. It adequately covers the main behavior.

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% for the single 'passage' parameter, and the description adds no new information beyond the schema. The example 'Isaiah 41:10' is already provided in the schema description.

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 action (check existence, get URL) and the resource (free in-depth study page for a Bible verse). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_verse_text (which retrieves verse text) and study_bible_passage (which likely performs a study).

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 when to use this tool: to check for the existence of a study page before studying. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context makes it clear.

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 correctly indicates a read-only fetch operation and notes that translations are public-domain. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the tool can handle multiple verses or ranges). The lack of behavioral detail is adequate for a simple fetch tool but could be improved.

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 concise: one sentence that clearly conveys the purpose and key details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by parenthetical specifics. No redundant or 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action, valid translations, and a hint about reference format. However, it does not describe the output format or any error conditions, which might be useful for a fully complete description.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that translations are 'public-domain' and providing common abbreviations (web, kjv). It also gives an example of a valid reference format. This additional context helps the agent understand the expected values and constraints.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'exact text of a Bible verse or passage'. It also specifies the available translations (web, kjv) and their sources. This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like find_verse_study_page or study_bible_passage, which focus on study aids rather than raw text.

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 retrieving exact verse text but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternatives guidance is provided. The mention of public-domain translations provides some context but no exclusions or prerequisites.

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, but the description discloses key behaviors: answers are Scripture-cited and reference sources. It does not mention any limitations, side effects, or permissions, which would be helpful for a mutation-free tool.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: introduces purpose, lists modes with brief explanations, and states output characteristics. 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?

Given 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately informs about the tool's operation. It explains the role of each parameter and the nature of the response (Scripture-cited). A minor gap: no mention of response format or length.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant meaning by detailing each study mode's purpose (e.g., observe: what the text says) and clarifying the question parameter's role (default mode study if omitted). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal enum and type info.

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 defines the tool's purpose: asking questions about Bible passages and receiving Scripture-cited answers. It lists the study modes and distinguishes from siblings (find_verse_study_page, get_verse_text) by focusing on interactive study with modes.

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 when to use by listing study modes and stating that answers quote Scripture, suggesting it's for in-depth study. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_verse_text for raw text or find_verse_study_page for pre-written studies.

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