SPLIDIA — operational notes and capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only describes the informational content, missing the opportunity to clarify safety or constraints.

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 bilingual, doubling its length, but it is structured with a list of included topics. It front-loads the main purpose, though some redundancy between languages reduces conciseness. Adequate but not optimized.

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 purpose (returning a profile) and the absence of output schema, the description covers the main aspects: content type, filtering parameters, and brand differentiation. It does not detail result structure or pagination, but these are not critical for this informational 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. It restates the brand, detail level, language, and capability ID options without providing new context or formatting 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 the tool returns a profile of the CSIDIA group and its service catalogue, listing specific content like positioning, capabilities, and sectors. It also distinguishes between the csidia and splidia brands, making the purpose specific and differentiating it from siblings like search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (fetch, match_use_case, search). The description does not mention contexts where this tool is preferred or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'returns the full text', but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or mention any side effects, authentication, 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 extremely concise with no wasted words. Bilingual text is appropriate and efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits details about the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML, JSON) which would be helpful for an agent to parse the response 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's brief 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 that the tool returns the full text of an article given its id, and explicitly references the sibling tool 'search' as the source of the id, distinguishing it well.

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 indicates that the id should be a URL returned by 'search', providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus 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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (matched capabilities with reason, site, etc.) and behavior on no match (says so and returns synthetic profile). Does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but adequately covers core 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?

Two bilingual sentences, front-loaded with Italian then English. Compact but slightly redundant due to bilingual nature. No waste; 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (reason, site, etc.) and failure case. However, it does not reference optional parameters like limit, sector, or language in the description text. Still sufficient for a matching tool with good schema coverage.

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%, achieving baseline. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema definitions (e.g., 'free-text need' is already in schema). No parameter-specific elaboration in 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 tool's verb ('restituisce/returns') and resource ('capacità del gruppo CSIDIA / CSIDIA capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: 'capabilities' likely lists all, while this tool matches a specific need. The bilingual text reinforces the specific action.

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 (when you have a free-text need) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No comparison to sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'search', so context-aware selection is left to the agent.

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 full burden. It only mentions the output format (list with IDs) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, caching, or error handling. It also does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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 bilingual, which increases length unnecessarily. It is front-loaded with Italian then English, making it redundant. The content is adequate but could be more concise by using only one language.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives minimal context: it lists sites and output ID format. It lacks information on error scenarios, pagination, ordering, or how to interpret results. The connection to 'fetch' is mentioned but not explained.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond confirming the sites and output ID structure. It does not elaborate on parameter behavior or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches articles/operational notes from two specific websites and returns results with IDs for use with 'fetch'. It's specific about the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'match_use_case', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 a usage pattern (search then pass ID to fetch), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use this tool compared to siblings.

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