Patrick Vieira

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context beyond that — and it does, by disclosing the concrete fields returned despite there being no output schema. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a public read that is a minor omission.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its identity, with the field list tucked into a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 parameterless read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is otherwise missing: the identity of the profile and the shape of the return payload. No gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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?

Zero parameters with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get profile) and enumerates the exact payload returned: name, headline, tagline, location, links. The parenthetical disambiguates the entity from the footballer of the same name, which is genuinely useful for an agent resolving the name. Clearly distinguishable from the list_* siblings and request_intro.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the only profile-fetching tool among list_faq, list_skills, list_work and request_intro, so an agent can infer when to call it. But there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement about how it relates to request_intro (e.g. call this before requesting an intro).

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 non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing the return shape (q/a pairs), but says nothing about staleness, caching, or completeness of the FAQ set.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the item shape. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing 'q' and 'a' is terse enough to border on cryptic.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: annotations carry the safety profile and the sentence discloses the return structure. It could be improved with a note on what topics the FAQ covers, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly implies no input is required and instead characterizes the output items.

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 names the resource (FAQ about Patrick Vieira) and its content shape (question/answer pairs), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_profile or list_skills. It is clear but stops short of an explicit verb or a direct contrast with the other list_* tools.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as request_intro or get_profile, so the agent must infer that this is a static Q&A lookup. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on content shape, refresh behavior, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and nothing to front-load past. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — there simply isn't enough content to be structured well.

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 no-arg, read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the minimum contract is met. It still leaves open what a 'skill' entry contains and how this differs from get_profile/list_work, which the description could cheaply clarify.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema fully specifies the (empty) input contract. Baseline 4 applies since there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'list_skills' becomes 'listed skills'. It identifies the owner (Patrick Vieira) which filenames-to-resource mapping helps slightly, but it adds no verb, scope, or distinction from the sibling list_work, which a reasonable agent would confuse with this 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings get_profile and list_work present, an agent has to guess whether skills belong in get_profile or overlap with list_work.

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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and the field list — it does not mention ordering, pagination, or how many items are returned, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the most useful information (the returned fields) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to be maximally informative.

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 at least enumerate the returned fields (title, summary, tags), which is the key missing structured information. However, it omits result scope (all items vs. a fixed subset) and any guidance on how the data relates to sibling list tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps 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 description names the resource (work items) and the payload fields (title, summary, tags), but 'Selected work' is a vague noun phrase without a verb and gives no sense of what 'selected' means or how it differs from siblings like list_skills or list_faq. An agent can guess it returns a list, but the scope is not sharpened against alternatives.

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 indication of when to call this versus get_profile, list_skills, list_faq, or request_intro. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context is offered, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the 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 only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, open-world). The description adds operational context the annotations cannot convey: strict per-sender rate limiting ('at most a couple per sender per day'), consent requirements, and a no-retry directive on error. These are exactly the traits that change agent behavior for an irreversible outbound send.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient before constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable rule (consent, rate limit, no retry) with no 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?

No output schema exists, yet the agent needs nothing more: the action, recipient, preconditions, volume limit, and error behavior are all stated. For a 6-parameter non-idempotent send tool, this is complete.

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 83%, so most parameters (from_name, from_email, message, agent, organisation) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for any parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send Patrick Vieira a short introduction by email on behalf of a person'), including the recipient and the proxy relationship. This clearly separates it from the read-only siblings (get_profile, list_faq, list_skills, list_work), none of which perform outbound contact.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only use this when the person has asked you to contact him and has approved the message') and explicit failure handling ('Do not retry on error'), plus a volume ceiling. An agent knows both when to call it and what not to do afterwards.

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