Wisdom Web by Six Eight

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: the result is deterministic per UTC day, identical for all callers, and verified word-for-word against a Project Gutenberg source. It does not mention caching, rate limits, or failure modes if the daily quote is unavailable.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then layers the guarantees (public domain, verified source, attribution, UTC determinism). Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: the line itself plus author, book, and source link. For a zero-argument read tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. The description correctly signals that no input is needed by describing a fixed, universal daily result, which matches the empty 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?

Names a specific resource ('Today's quote from Wisdom Web') and verb-like action, and the clause 'everyone gets the same line on the same day (UTC)' strongly implies it is the fixed daily feed rather than a query tool like search_quotes. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 by the deterministic daily framing: an agent can infer this is for 'give me today's quote' rather than searching or fetching a specific verse. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to search_quotes or get_verse as alternatives.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real constraints: public-domain English translations only, translation and licence always reported, and numbering conventions per tradition. It stops short of describing pagination or how multi-verse ranges are bounded beyond the schema's 'up to 12 verses.'

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?

Front-loaded with the primary lookup behavior, then constraints, then invocation. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical example lists are slightly repetitive of the schema examples but not wasteful.

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 steps in to say results carry translation and licence, and it covers traditions, language limits, and numbering caveats. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of result count limits for topic searches or empty-result 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by clarifying the reference parameter's tradition-specific numbering (Gita/Dhammapada/Tao Te Ching/Analects/Zhuangzi are passage-numbered, not chapter:verse) and by noting reference overrides topic — semantic detail the schema does not carry.

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 pair — looks up a verse by reference or finds one on a topic — and enumerates the traditions and reference formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_quotes, which plausibly overlaps in the 'find text by theme' space.

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 clear invocation guidance: 'Give a reference or a topic,' explains that reference takes precedence over topic, and warns that non-Bible traditions are numbered by passage so a chapter should be requested. No exclusions or named alternatives against siblings, which caps it below 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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses privacy behavior ('Nothing they write is stored') and a critical conditional routing rule: self-harm or harm-to-others input returns crisis resources only. These are high-value behavioral traits an agent must know before calling and cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded: trigger first, then outputs, then privacy, then the safety branch. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (guidance, quote, optional practice) and the one exception case (crisis resources). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'situation' field fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance about the input beyond what the schema states, 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 trigger scenario (stuck in a loop: scrolling, texting an ex, procrastinating, spiralling, craving) and concrete outputs (Six Eight's method as guidance, one verified quote, a matching 6:8 practice). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_quotes or get_verse by framing it as situational guidance rather than lookup. Differentiation is implicit in the trigger framing rather than explicit routing.

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 opening clause gives vivid when-to-use conditions with five concrete examples, which is strong guidance. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer daily_wisdom or search_quotes instead), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: quotes are verified against source texts, the corpus is public-domain (Seneca, Lao Tzu, Emerson, Shakespeare, Proverbs), and results are capped at 5 lines with author/book/source.

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, front-loaded with the action and the verification guarantee, then the return shape, then query syntax. The author parenthetical is the only mildly expendable element.

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 carries return-value duty and does so (up to 5 lines with author, book, source). Parameters and annotations are fully covered; only edge behavior such as no-match handling and ranking is unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by characterizing 'query' as plain words or an author name (rather than boolean/phrase syntax) and by restating the 5-result ceiling tied to the limit parameter.

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: searches a library of public-domain quotes that are individually verified against their source text, and names the return shape (author, book, source). It reads as clearly distinct from one_action/take_compass by virtue of being a keyword search, but it never explicitly routes against the sibling 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?

It tells the agent how to phrase a query ('use plain words: patience, grief, starting over, or an author's name'), which is useful implied guidance, but gives no when-to-use/when-not or any comparison to daily_wisdom/get_verse.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool only returns a link and the actual activity happens on an external site rather than in chat, which explains the open-world hint concretely.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it does and immediately followed by the key constraint about where the quiz runs. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns (a link) and where the quiz runs. It could optionally note what the six-dimension quiz entails, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about parameter semantics needs clarification, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 (describes) and resource (6:8 Alignment Compass, a free reflective quiz) plus the concrete output (a link to take it). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling verse/quote tools, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with them.

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 line 'The quiz runs on sixeightapp.com, not in chat' implies the intended usage flow — fetch the link, then complete the quiz externally — but gives no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative among the siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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