Tester Exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (platform, credits, actions), which is mild but real context; it says nothing about return format, freshness, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering three content areas with no filler or repetition. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 no-argument, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what knowledge it will get back. It could be more complete by clarifying its relationship to pricing and platform_stats, but nothing essential to invoking it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving no parameter gaps.

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 the resource (Tester Exchange overview) and enumerates the content it returns: what the platform is, how credits work, and the available actions. That is specific enough to distinguish it from action tools like add_app or buy_credits_links, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as pricing or platform_stats.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives like pricing or platform_stats, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the content list; an agent must guess that this is an onboarding/help entry point.

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 a non-read-only, closed-world operation; the description adds useful context by stating the app must be in Google Play closed testing and that a token is required. It says nothing about what is created, whether re-adding is idempotent, or what a failure looks like, so the gain over annotations is modest.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the key precondition is front-loaded. However, the lead sentence misstates the operation, which wastes the most prominent position rather than earning it.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description covers only a precondition and a token note. Parameter meaning and post-call behavior are absent, so an agent cannot call this confidently without reading the schema.

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 with two required, and the description never references any of them. With schema coverage at 60%, name, group_url and package_name are documented in the schema but description, instructions and the overall role of `name` are not, and the description does nothing to close that 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?

"List an Android app that is in Google Play closed testing" names the resource and the state the app must be in, so the gist is recoverable, but the verb "List" does not match the tool name add_app or the write-oriented annotation, leaving the actual action (enroll/register the app) ambiguous.

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 precondition — the closed track must be published with the opt-in link enabled — plus an auth note, which is implied usage guidance. It never contrasts this tool with siblings such as list_open_tests or start_campaign, so selection between them is left to inference.

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 this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: a per-unit cost of 15 credits and a token requirement. It omits whether slot purchases are reversible, whether count is capped, or what happens to an already-live campaign.

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 with two compact parentheticals for cost and auth. Nothing is padded and the core action leads. The parentheticals are terse but each carries real 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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves the undocumented count parameter and the return/confirmation behavior unexplained. Cost and auth are covered, which is more than most, but the gap on count is notable given the 50% 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 only 50%: package_name is documented in the schema, but 'count' has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate, saying nothing about what count controls, its default of 1, or any upper bound. Only the plural 'slots' loosely hints that count exists.

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 ('Add tester slots to a live campaign') with an added cost qualifier that narrows intent. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like add_app or start_campaign. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'live campaign' implies the precondition that the campaign must already be running, and '(needs a token)' signals an auth prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no alternatives named among the many campaign-related 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds two useful behavioral facts: the call only produces links and a human must finish payment, and a token is required. That is real added context for an agent deciding whether the call will actually complete a purchase.

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 short fragments with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The parenthetical auth note is slightly awkward but costs little.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description covers purpose, the human-in-the-loop constraint, and auth. Only details like link count or validity would add more.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter surface to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but nothing is missing either.

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 identifies the resource (checkout links for credit packs) clearly enough that an agent understands the tool returns payment links rather than performing a purchase. It does not distinguish itself from the similar-looking 'pricing' sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: 'A human must complete the payment' tells the agent this is for handing off a link, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as 'pricing'. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – that a token is required – but says nothing about rate limits, freshness of the daily/tester metrics, or what a caller must prepare beyond the token.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the report contents and appending the token requirement as a short parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the noun-phrase form is slightly less actionable than a verb-led sentence.

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 the burden of hinting at return content, and listing the metrics does partially satisfy that. However, it omits how the report is structured, time-range behavior, and any noted prerequisite beyond the token, leaving modest gaps for a metrics 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% and the single package_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about which package or how it scopes the report.

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 the specific data the tool returns – testers, daily active testers, feedback, and production-access evidence – which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like list_open_tests or my_tests. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'retrieve/generate report'), but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

Beyond the parenthetical '(needs a token)', there is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_open_tests, my_tests, or platform_stats. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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=false. The description adds useful preconditions (linked phone, Tester Exchange app installed, token needed) that go beyond annotations. It does not state what the join actually creates, whether it can be undone, or any rate limits, so the added value is moderate.

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 action front-loaded and prerequisites trailing. The parenthetical "(needs a token)" is slightly awkward and sits apart from the other preconditions, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and preconditions. It leaves gaps: the "needs a token" requirement has no corresponding parameter in the schema, and the success behavior/return is unspecified, which may confuse an agent about what to supply.

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% for the single package_name parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description only indirectly alludes to it ("one of the user's apps"); it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 verb and resource ("Put one of the user's apps in the free swap circle"), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling leave_swap_circle by the opposite verb. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the add-vs-remove framing is unambiguous for an agent.

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 usage context via prerequisites ("Needs the Tester Exchange app on the user's phone (a linked phone)"), which tells the agent when the tool can succeed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus leave_swap_circle, my_swap_circle, or swap_circle_status.

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 mark this as a non-read-only, closed-world operation, and the description usefully adds two things they don't cover: that it returns opt-in steps for the human's phone, and that a token is required. It stops short of saying what state is created 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 short sentences plus a parenthetical, with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. No filler, though the token note reads as an afterthought.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return payload, and the auth requirement. The main gap is the absence of any routing versus the join_swap_circle sibling.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Android package name, e.g. com.example.app'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (join) plus the resource and role ('another developer's test as a tester'), so an agent understands the action immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling join_swap_circle, which appears to be an alternative way to join tests.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions beyond the parenthetical '(needs a token)', and no mention of the alternative join_swap_circle or how to choose between them. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds that the call 'needs a token,' which is genuine auth context beyond the annotations. It still omits the consequence of leaving (e.g., whether a spot or credits are forfeited), so the behavioral picture is incomplete but not empty.

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 clauses with no wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the parenthetical auth note. The parenthetical is slightly awkward but does not bloat the text.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and auth needs. It falls short on the outcome of leaving — an agent calling a mutation on a swap circle would benefit from knowing what is lost or returned.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond 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?

States a specific verb (leave) and resource (swap circle) plus a scoping condition (while it is still filling), which implicitly contrasts with join_swap_circle. An agent can distinguish it from sibling circle tools without opening a schema.

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 'while it is still filling' implies a timing condition under which the tool applies, giving implied usage guidance. However, it never names the alternative (join_swap_circle) or states when-not to use it, so the guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that supplying a token narrows results to tests the user can join — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what fields each entry carries.

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 resource stated first and no filler. The second sentence is telegraphic and slightly ambiguous in phrasing ('With a token, only tests the user can join'), costing a point on 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential who/what but omits return shape, pagination, and how the listing is ordered. Adequate as a minimum-viable label, not rich enough to fully set expectations.

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; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The token mention is not a schema parameter and is handled under behavioral transparency instead.

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 resource and scope: Android apps currently seeking closed-testing testers. That distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like my_tests (the caller's own tests) and join_test (an action), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 only implied by the scope of results; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as my_tests or join_test. The token clause describes output filtering rather than when to pick this tool.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the auth requirement ('needs a token'), but says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether 'open tests' is truncated/paginated.

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 compact sentence with the returned data front-loaded and the auth caveat tucked into a short parenthetical. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating four concrete data points plus the token requirement. Only the shape/format of the returned payload is left unspecified.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical token note is a call-level prerequisite rather than a schema 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?

Names the resource (the user's account) and enumerates the specific data it returns: credit balance, invite link, linked phones, open tests. It's clear what comes back, but it doesn't distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like my_tests, list_open_tests, or about, which also surface account-adjacent data.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it needs the current user's account snapshot. The '(needs a token)' note signals an auth prerequisite, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given despite several overlapping 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 already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the authentication requirement '(needs a token)' plus the fact that status is live/current and what dimensions it exposes. It stops short of 5 by not saying anything about ordering, volume, or how an app with no campaign is represented.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short auth parenthetical, with the resource first and the clarifying field names second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, a trivially simple schema, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and mostly discharges it by enumerating the status fields. It would be fully complete if it clarified the per-app grouping and what 'open slots' means in practice.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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?

The description names the resource (the user's apps) and the payload (live status of each testing campaign, with the specific fields active testers, waiting installs, open slots), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The verb is only implied ('my apps' = list my apps) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like my_tests, my_account, or my_swap_circle, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisite framing beyond the token note, and no mention of alternatives. With 19 siblings, several of which sound like overlapping 'my X' listing tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint the annotations do not carry — that an auth token is required — but says nothing about what the response contains beyond a rough field list or about failure modes when unauthenticated.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned fields, with the auth prerequisite appended. No filler, though the parenthetical token note reads as an afterthought rather than structured 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 output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing return values, and it lists status, developer count, and apps — a reasonable sketch. It still omits how this differs from 'swap_circle_status' and what the fields actually look like, which matters given the crowded swap-circle sibling set.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No misleading parameter information is present.

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 specific resource ('the user's swap circle') and enumerates what it returns: status, developer count, and apps. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'swap_circle_status', leaving an agent unsure which of the two to call. Clear purpose, but no sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools (swap_circle_status, join_swap_circle, leave_swap_circle) that would route an agent correctly. The only contextual note is '(needs a token)', which is a prerequisite rather than usage 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of real value beyond that: the token/auth requirement and a hint at what is returned (verified days and credits earned), but says nothing about format, ordering, or pagination.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is a sentence fragment with the auth note wedged in trailing parentheses. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: annotations carry the safety profile and the text names the resource and return contents. It still leaves the core ambiguity (how this differs from list_open_tests) and the return shape unresolved.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or for it to omit.

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 the resource (the user's own tests as a tester, with verified days and credits) but uses a fragment with no real verb — an agent can't tell whether this lists, summarizes, or reports on tests. It loosely implies a 'my tests' scope versus the sibling list_open_tests, but the differentiation is left to inference 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?

There is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of siblings such as list_open_tests, my_apps, or campaign_report. The only guidance is the parenthetical '(needs a token)', which is an auth prerequisite rather than usage routing.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the numbers are 'live' (i.e., refreshed/real-time rather than cached) and it enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 listing the metric set with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the four metric groups. A one-clause note on freshness or scope would make it fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 resource (live platform numbers) and enumerates exactly which metrics are returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like about, pricing, or my_account. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping 'about' tool.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'about', 'pricing', or 'my_account', all of which could plausibly surface platform-level information. Usage is only implied by the noun 'platform numbers'.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the content spans both earning/spending mechanics and pack prices, with no mention of freshness, account-specificity, or response shape. It adds context but not much.

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 eleven-word sentence with the substantive content ('how credits are earned and spent') front-loaded ahead of the narrower 'credit pack prices'. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers the subject matter adequately. It could note whether the figures are global or account-specific, but the gap is minor.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 the resource precisely: credit earning/spending rules plus credit pack prices. That is enough for an agent to know this is a static informational lookup rather than an account or purchase tool. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the nearby 'about', 'my_account', and 'buy_credits_links' siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like 'about', 'my_account', and 'buy_credits_links' plausibly competing for the same credit/pricing questions, the description leaves the agent to guess which one answers a pricing query.

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 say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and delivers two useful facts: closing irreversibly refunds unused credits (a destructive side effect), and a token is required. It does not say whether pausing/resuming is reversible or what happens to already-refunded credits.

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 plus a parenthetical, with the action enumerated first and the consequence of the riskiest branch immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action set, the irreversible refund consequence, and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around token type/location and whether paused campaigns resume with the same credits, but nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: package_name is documented in the schema and status is a self-describing enum. The description's pause/resume/close wording loosely maps onto the active/paused/closed values but adds no format or identity detail for package_name, so it does not 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?

The description states a specific verb set (pause, resume, close) against a specific resource (a campaign), which is enough to distinguish it from start_campaign among the siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 three supported transitions are listed, so an agent can infer which call to make for each desired state, but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when closing is appropriate versus pausing, or when to use this instead of start_campaign.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement '(needs a token)', which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about rate limits, what the generated URLs look like, or whether the public page is persisted.

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 compact sentence that lists the deliverable assets first and the auth caveat last. It is appropriately sized, though the opening noun phrase makes the action slightly less front-loaded than a verb-first statement would be.

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 one-parameter read tool the description is roughly adequate: it tells the agent what the tool returns. It lacks any usage context and does not clarify the relationship to sibling app-management tools, leaving a moderate gap for an agent choosing between 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 coverage is 100% and the single package_name parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description only references 'one of the user's apps' without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema, 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?

The description names the artifacts produced (public 'help test my app' page, ready message, README badge) and scopes them to one of the user's apps, so the output is inferable. However, it is a noun-phrase list rather than a clear verb+resource, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like my_apps or add_testers beyond the asset types.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to. The only usage-adjacent information is the parenthetical '(needs a token)', which is a prerequisite rather than selection 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses the cost model (testers × 15 credits, held in escrow, unused refunded) and an auth requirement ('needs a token'). That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields, though it omits what happens on failure or partial campaigns.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the primary action, then cost model, then the token requirement. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 2 params, the description covers purpose, cost mechanics, escrow/refund, and auth. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g., insufficient credits handling) and how testers interacts with the min/max bounds.

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 50%: package_name is documented in schema, testers is not. The description ties testers to cost ('testers × 15 credits'), adding some meaning, but never explains the 12–30 bounds or the default of 15. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 ('Start recruiting') and resource ('testers for one of the user's apps'), which is clearly distinct from sibling names like add_testers, set_campaign_status, and join_test. It does not explicitly name a sibling or draw the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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: you call this to launch recruitment for an app. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over add_testers or set_campaign_status, nor any prerequisites beyond the token note. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the sibling 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about circle mechanics (13 developers, 14 days, free) but does not describe the returned status format, permissions, or any rate-limit 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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is domain explanation rather than invocation detail, but it is brief and helps interpret the status.

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-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It does not specify the exact return shape (count vs. boolean), but its low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not contradict or confuse 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?

The description states a specific resource and metric ('how full the next free swap circle is'), clearly distinguishing this from my_swap_circle or join_swap_circle. It is not framed as a verb+resource but is nonetheless specific enough for an agent to understand the query.

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 when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as join_swap_circle or my_swap_circle. The 'next free' phrasing implies a pre-join availability check, but this must be inferred rather than read.

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