Rixot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves a balance, without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 that is immediately understandable. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what is retrieved and in what currency. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the currency (USD), which provides useful context even though there are no parameters to document.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('Rixot account balance'), with the USD denomination adding specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on articles, baskets, donors, links, and backlink ordering.

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. While siblings are topically unrelated, the description provides no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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 transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the prompt, that editing is optional, and that the output contract is fixed. It also clarifies that the edited guidance is passed via order_backlink, not directly saved here, implying a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state safety or side effects, which would be ideal.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and provides essential context about editing and output constraints. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

The description covers the main purpose and workflow, and mentions the fixed output contract, which is important. However, it omits any explanation of how parameters like keyword, language, and target_url affect the prompt, and the role of the recommendations parameter for this tool is ambiguous. Given 4 optional params and no output schema, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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 schema has 4 parameters (keyword, language, target_url, recommendations) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'recommendations' but in the context of order_backlink, not this tool's own parameter. It fails to explain keyword, language, or target_url, leaving their meaning and usage unclear. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Return our default article-generation prompt', which is a specific verb ('return') and resource ('default article-generation prompt'). It also explains the purpose (see how the article is written) and distinguishes from sibling tools like order_backlink by showing the workflow of editing and passing recommendations.

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 says to 'Pass the edited guidance back as "recommendations" in order_backlink', which guides when and how to use this tool in conjunction with another. It implies using this tool before ordering to review/customize the prompt. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the contextual flow.

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. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the parenthetical adds context about inspecting drafted content. It doesn't disclose return format or pagination, but for a simple list operation, the description sufficiently conveys non-mutating behavior.

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. The main action ('List what is currently in your basket') is stated first, followed by a parenthetical clarification. 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does and when to use it. It doesn't specify return values, but the verb 'List' implies the output is the basket contents, which is sufficient for this simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all needed info. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose (basket inspection), which complements the empty parameter schema. Baseline for 0 params 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your basket'), and clarifies the scope as 'drafted articles/placements before publishing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_basket or order_backlink.

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 'before publishing' gives clear usage context: use this to inspect the basket prior to publishing. It implicitly differentiates from publish_basket, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Find' and lists filters, but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or response format. This is inadequate given the absence of 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, and it doesn't repeat schema information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to provide more context. It gives the core purpose and filters, making it minimally viable, but falls short on explaining return values, response structure, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 lists the parameter names but only vaguely implies domain_filter relates to niche and price_max to budget. It doesn't explain dr_min (e.g., Domain Rating threshold) or page semantics, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource 'marketplace donor sites' and scope 'for a niche/budget'. It also lists the filter parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_links, which likely deals with different resources.

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 clearly implies the tool is for finding donor sites when you have a niche or budget in mind, and the listed filters suggest how to narrow the search. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like list_links, so it's not a full 5.

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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and specifies the scope ('your ordered backlinks') and the returned fields ('status and published URL'). While it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or ownership scope beyond 'your,' the core behavior is transparent and the description adds context 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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the primary action ('List') and includes essential output details. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action, the scope, and the returned fields, covering everything needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only missing element is comparative guidance with siblings, but that is not essential given the tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps since there are none.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'your ordered backlinks,' and it specifies the output includes 'status and published URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_donors or order_backlink, making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the read-only counterpart to order_backlink, nor does it give any context about prerequisites or situations where another tool should be used instead. The description simply states what the tool does without any comparative or conditional guidance.

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 must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the non-charging behavior upfront ('no charge yet'), modal prerequisites ('requires own-content enabled'), and the required presence of target_url in every mode. It doesn't detail response formats or reversibility, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences pack a lot of information without excess. The purpose is front-loaded, and the mode breakdown is structured with clear punctuation. The density is high but justifiable given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 3 modes, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the required parameter groupings, prerequisites, and downstream actions. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but those are largely covered by the output schema absence and the schema descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining which parameter combinations are valid per mode: auto (donor_ids+target_url+keyword), prompt (+recommendations), own (target_url+content+optional title/article_url). This combinatorial logic is not present in the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add backlink order(s) to your basket (no charge yet)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it stages orders, while publish_basket handles payment. The three modes (auto, prompt, own) further specify scope.

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 provides when-to-use guidance per mode and references sibling tools: 'fetch the editable base prompt with get_article_prompt first' and 'Then call publish_basket to pay from balance.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the mode selection and references to siblings give adequate context.

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 discloses critical behavioral traits: 'If the balance is short it does nothing and reports how much more is needed'—an all-or-nothing behavior with a clear failure mode. It also states the top-up limitation, which is beyond basic expectations. 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second gives the failure behavior, and the third provides a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, failure mode, and related constraint. It could mention what happens on success (e.g., confirmation), but given the simplicity, it's largely complete. Sibling tools provide additional 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none; it focuses on behavior, which is appropriate.

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's function: 'Publish everything in your basket, paying from your account balance.' This is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_basket' (retrieve) and 'order_backlink' (individual order).

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 provides clear usage context: it publishes everything and pays from balance. It also gives a key exclusion—'Topping up the balance is done in the dashboard only'—which implies when not to use this tool (if balance is short, you must go to dashboard). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like checking balance first, but the context is clear.

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