Refugio San Bernardo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool also checks if the refuge is closed, which is useful context. It does not detail other behaviors like return format or rate limits.

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 action, and every word is necessary. No redundancy or irrelevant 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?

For a simple check tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and usage context. It could be improved by mentioning what the response will contain (e.g., boolean or availability message).

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 75%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions dates and room type but omits the 'guests' parameter. The enum for room_type is clear from the schema itself.

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 checks availability and closure status for a specific refuge, dates, and room type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_closures' by combining both checks, and from 'list_room_types' by focusing on availability.

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 advises use when the user mentions dates for a mountain trip in Mendoza, providing clear context. However, it doesn't specify when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'check_closures' for standalone closure checks.

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 annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true' indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it lists closures. It does not disclose whether past closures are included or the format of the output, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, with no superfluous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It states it lists upcoming closures but does not describe the response format (e.g., list of dates, structured data). A bit more detail would improve 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds contextual nuance by specifying 'próximos cierres' (upcoming closures), implying a temporal scope, but does not require parameter detail. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters 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 lists upcoming closures (unavailable dates). It uses a specific verb 'Lista' and resource 'cierres del refugio'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'check_availability', which likely checks specific date availability, missing some differentiation.

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 when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'check_availability' which could be complementary. The AI agent is left 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.

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. The description adds detail on the specific contact methods returned (email, WhatsApp, Instagram), exceeding annotation content.

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 with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and effective.

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?

Simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description lists contact types, which is sufficient for this trivial use case, though it could mention usage 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?

No parameters, so schema provides no parameter info. The description adds meaning by specifying the data returned (contact methods), fulfilling the purpose without parameter details.

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 tool provides contact data (email, WhatsApp, Instagram) for the refuge, using specific verb 'datos de contacto' and listing resources. Distinguishes from siblings like 'refuge_info'.

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 or avoid this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for selection among 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?

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool calculates total price and deposit. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description clarifies the nature of the read operation.

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 conveys the tool's main purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the term 'seña' (deposit) or any assumptions in calculation. The tool is straightforward, so completeness is moderate.

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 does not explain any parameters beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is low (40%), and the description omits parameter details, such as the meaning of 'guests', 'guides', or the format for 'check_in' and 'check_out' beyond the schema's minimal note.

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 calculates total price and required deposit for a stay. It uses a specific verb ('calcula') and resource ('precio total de una estadía y la seña requerida'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like check_availability or request_reservation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it is for price calculation, it lacks information about when to prefer it over other 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds that the data is real measurements from a specific station. This provides extra context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, where the data comes from, and when to use it. No gaps remain.

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 are defined, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), meeting the baseline for zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it provides current real weather measured at a specific station (Vallecitos, Cordón del Plata). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_availability or check_closures by specifying the precise resource and location.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: when users ask about weather in Vallecitos, Cordón del Plata, or to plan a trip in the area. This gives clear context and excludes other 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?

Beyond readOnlyHint, discloses that the tool opens a navigation app, which is a behavioral effect. No mention of side effects or data retrieval specifics, but sufficient for a read-only 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. 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?

Adequately describes output (address and map link) for a simple tool. Lacks details on address format or map link behavior, but sufficient given no parameters.

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 exist, so description carries no burden. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tool.

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 tool provides the refuge address and a map link that opens a navigation app. Differentiates from siblings like 'refuge_info' which likely gives broader info.

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?

Implicitly clear for getting directions, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'contact_info' or 'refuge_info'.

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, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by specifying returned fields (base price, capacity), providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and output. 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about returning all types, but is sufficient for this simple list 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly provides no irrelevant param details.

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 lists room types (shared/private) with base price and capacity, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on types enumeration, not availability or pricing for specific rooms.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the purpose is implied from context. The description lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_price or check_availability.

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 include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds specific content details beyond annotations, though it does not mention return format or size. 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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with key information. It covers purpose and usage in a compact form, though a slight structural improvement (e.g., separating details) could enhance readability.

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?

Despite no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fully explains what the tool provides and when to use it. For a parameterless info 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?

No parameters exist, so the description need not explain them. Baseline 4 applies as the description adds no param info but none is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides general data about Refugio San Bernardo including location, altitude, room types, schedules, and deposit policy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing specific topics covered.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: when discussing Vallecitos, Cordón del Plata, Cerro El Plata, acclimatization for Aconcagua, or trekking/mountaineering in Mendoza. This provides clear context and differentiates from 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?

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, but the description goes far beyond by detailing the preview/confirmation workflow, the email notification, and the account activation step. This significantly helps the agent understand side effects and required user approvals.

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 paragraph but packs all necessary information without fluff. It starts with the main action, then provides usage tips, and explains the workflow. It is efficient for its complexity, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and key parameter behaviors. It explains the preview vs. confirmation, but does not detail error cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether an account is needed beforehand). Still, it is largely complete for an agent 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?

With 75% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for the 'confirm' parameter, explaining its role in preview vs. creation, and clarifies that 'email' ties the request to the user. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool creates a reservation request at a specific refuge (Refugio San Bernardo), using a specific verb ('crea una solicitud de reserva'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool for reservation requests, and the description reinforces its unique role.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: offer proactively when the user shows interest in the area. It also explains the two-step process (preview with confirm=false, creation with confirm=true). While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, the sibling tools (e.g., check_availability) serve different purposes, so the usage context is clear.

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