Teetra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description's trailing 'Read-only' merely repeats that hint, adding no new value; the only incremental information is the scope phrase 'across services.' No auth requirements or rate-limit behavior are disclosed.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and contain no filler. The only wasted tokens are the redundant 'Read-only' clause, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the purpose is adequately conveyed. However, for a tool with an undocumented optional auth_token and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps around how to authenticate and which services are covered.

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% and the single parameter (auth_token, nullable, default null) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions authentication tokens or whether the call works anonymously, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Check your remaining free trial calls or subscription allowance across services.' This clearly identifies a quota/status lookup, which is distinct from siblings like authorize, confirm, discover, and invoke, though the description never references those siblings directly.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the auth_token requirement. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'Check your remaining ... allowance,' which tells an agent the general context but nothing about sequencing or eligibility.

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=false and openWorldHint=true, so the lower bar applies. The description does add genuine behavioral signal: the call has two modes, either consuming a supplied API key/token or emitting a sign-in link for out-of-band completion. It stops short of saying whether credentials are persisted, whether a returned link expires, or what happens on failure.

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 sentences, no filler, with the purpose stated before the accepted-input detail. Structure is front-loaded and appropriate for the amount of information given, though the second sentence compresses three distinct inputs into one clause at the cost of clarity.

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 five-parameter authorization tool with zero schema descriptions and no required parameters, the description leaves too many decisions open: which identifier selects the service, whether a credential and a service must be paired, and how to proceed when a sign-in link is returned. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from the input-selection ambiguity.

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% across five nullable parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'Accepts an API key or token' loosely gestures at api_key/auth_token/bearer_token but never distinguishes them, never explains whether they are mutually exclusive, and leaves service and adapter_id entirely unexplained — arguably the most important parameter for choosing what to authorize.

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 a concrete outcome — connecting your own account/API key for a service — and adds the distinguishing detail that it either accepts credentials or returns a sign-in link. That is enough to separate it from siblings like account, confirm, or invoke. It loses a point only because the verb is soft ('Connect') and the scope of 'service' is never grounded.

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 supplies a real trigger condition ('to continue past the free trial'), which tells the agent when this tool becomes relevant. However, it names no alternative path (e.g., when to use account instead, or what to do if the sign-in link flow is preferred) and offers no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is largely covered. The description adds useful non-obvious context: this is the second half of a deferred-execution flow that previews before approving. It does not disclose that webauthn/auth_token credentials appear to be required, nor whether previously created pending actions expire or are invalidated.

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, mechanism and identifier front-loaded, no filler or restated metadata. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive, open-world mutation with an undocumented authentication surface, the description omits what happens after approval, whether credentials are needed, and whether the confirmation is time- or single-use-bound — meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains pending_id only implicitly ('by its pending_id'), and says nothing about the webauthn or auth_token parameters, which are the least self-explanatory fields in the schema. Two of three parameters are undocumented in both places.

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 pair ('Preview and approve') and the target resource ('a pending action') keyed by pending_id, which is more informative than the bare name 'confirm'. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling tool 'authorize', which an agent could easily confuse with an approval step.

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?

'Used when a write requires user confirmation before running' gives real context for when the tool applies and implies a prior step created the pending action. But it names no alternative and gives no exclusion — the sibling 'authorize' is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which approval path applies.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the appended 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive phrase is 'without running them', which confirms no execution or side effects occur, but nothing is said about result shape or query 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?

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and only two flat parameters are involved. Still, with 0% schema coverage the description leaves 'domain' open (no examples) and says nothing about how many matches come back or how to act on them.

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 does explain that 'domain' is an optional narrowing filter and loosely characterizes 'intent' as what the user wants to do, but it gives no format, example, or valid domain values for either 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?

Clear specific verb and resource: 'Find matching APIs and actions'. It also implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'invoke' via 'without running them', so an agent can distinguish search from execution, though the sibling is never named.

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: use this to locate capabilities before executing anything, with an optional domain narrowing. It never states when not to use it or explicitly names 'invoke' as the follow-up alternative, so the agent must infer the search-then-execute workflow.

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 destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds only 'results come back as data' and trial status, saying nothing about what the action mutates, what gets destroyed, or auth_token requirements (auth_token is a parameter but unmentioned).

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 short (two sentences), but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The opening sentence is front-loaded with vague phrasing that provides no actionable signal.

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?

An open-world, destructive, five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation is described in a single vague line. The description is grossly inadequate for the complexity and risk profile of the call.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The required 'intent' parameter and the open-ended 'params'/'feedback' objects carry their entire meaning nowhere in the text, leaving the agent to guess at structure and formatting.

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 ('invoke' -> 'Do what the user asks') without naming a concrete resource or operation. 'Using a verified API on Teetra' is a generic platform reference that does not let an agent distinguish this from siblings like discover, authorize, or confirm.

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?

'Starts as a free trial' is onboarding trivia, not usage guidance; it gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives relative to the sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing invoke over discover or authorize from this text.

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