Agent Parts Yard - Salvage Exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It suggests an appeal action but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, expected response, or any rate/process 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 a single compact phrase with no wasted text, but it is under-specified rather than effectively structured. Conciseness is high, but clarity is limited.

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 input schema fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the appeal outcome and usage context more fully. As written, it leaves significant behavioral and workflow gaps.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and no contradiction 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?

The description identifies a specific verb/resource pair, 'appeal' for a 'DENIED part' in a model-scan context, but the phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy and does not clarify the outcome. It only weakly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as search, list, or harvest.

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 implies the tool is relevant when a part is DENIED, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether verification is read-only, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, or what the result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though it is sparse rather than structurally flawed.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's behavior and expected result. It does not describe what a successful verification returns or what happens on failure, leaving key context 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 has zero parameters, and per the scoring guidance a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already 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 contains a specific verb, 'Verify,' and identifies the target as 'genealogy against a buyer directory.' However, it does not explain what 'genealogy' means in this domain or what verification entails, leaving the purpose only partially 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The description gives no context or prerequisites for invocation.

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only a paywall ("$9.99 after the one-time trial") without saying whether calls fail after the trial, whether credits are consumed per call, or whether harvesting mutates state. The pricing hint is behavioral but so vague it raises more questions than it answers.

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 and front-loaded, but half the content is a cryptic price parenthetical that crowds out any actual description of behavior. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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 a trivial zero-parameter schema, the agent still cannot tell what a "component" is, whether this is the same as `list`, or what a successful call returns (no output schema). The description leaves the essential question — what does this actually do — unanswered.

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 schema already fully describes the (empty) input. Baseline of 4 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?

"Harvest & list a component" pairs two different verbs (harvest vs. list) without resolving which operation actually occurs, and "component" is never defined in context. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling `list` or `search`, which cover similar ground.

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, when to prefer `list`/`search`/`transplant`, or what preconditions apply. The only added clause is a price, which gives no invocation guidance at all.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, result scope, pagination, or visibility rules (which 'your own parts' implies but never explains). The 'listed vs. your own' distinction suggests a filtering/permission behavior that is never clarified.

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, but its brevity comes from vagueness rather than tight specification — the phrase 'list listed parts' is muddled and under-informative rather than economical.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what comes back and in what scope, and it does not deliver. An agent cannot tell what a returned 'part' contains or whose 'listed parts' are included.

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 per the baseline rule a parameter-free schema requires no compensating description. The description adds nothing here, 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 restates the tool name ("List") and then offers the circular phrase "listed parts and your own parts" without defining what a "part" is or what distinguishes this from the sibling 'search'. In a domain with harvest/transplant/genealogy siblings, the agent cannot confidently infer the resource being listed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the overlapping sibling 'search', which an agent would plausibly prefer for querying parts. The distinction between listing and searching is left entirely 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it adds nothing beyond the name: no indication of whether this reads or mutates state, what it returns, whether results are paginated or ranked, or what "listed" entails permission-wise. A three-word description for a no-annotation tool leaves the agent guessing entirely.

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 three-word phrase with no wasted clauses and nothing to front-load. However, this is brevity by omission rather than by discipline — the sentence is short because it conveys almost no information, not because it is tightly edited.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only channel available to explain behavior — and it delivers nothing about result contents, scope, or limits. An agent cannot form a correct call or interpret a response from this definition.

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 input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for 0 params applies. The one notable gap — that a search tool accepts no query argument at all — is left entirely unexplained, but that is a schema design issue rather than a description deficiency.

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?

"Search listed parts" names a verb (search) and an object (listed parts), but "listed" is unresolved — listed where, by whom, in what registry — so the agent cannot tell what corpus is being queried. There is no differentiation from the sibling tool "list", which an agent could easily mistake for this one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With siblings like "list", "harvest", and "transplant" in the same family, the agent has zero signal for choosing this tool over them.

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 at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a cost of $24.99 or a Yard Pass allowance, which tells the agent this is a consuming/paid action, but it says nothing about whether the part is destroyed or moved, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the cost, the most decision-relevant detail, included. It is tight, though the extreme terseness contributes to the ambiguity about what the operation actually does.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of the operation and what the caller gets back. It covers only the cost, leaving the core behavior of "transplant" undefined.

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 description correctly introduces none, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Transplant") and a specific resource ("a listed part"), so the agent knows this acts on a previously listed item. But it never says what a transplant does to that part or what it produces, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like harvest or list beyond the word "listed".

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 "a listed part" implies a prerequisite (an item must first be listed), which is weak but real context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among appeal, genealogy_verify, harvest, list, or search.

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