terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key context about cost ('paid, $0.01/req or pass') and licensing ('licensed'), which are important for agent decision-making. However, it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or the exact structure of the metadata, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences plus an Args section. Key details (full article, markdown, cost) are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, cost, and how to obtain the slug. The only notable omission is specifying what 'metadata' includes, but this does not hinder correct invocation. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for 'slug', but the description compensates by explaining that it is 'the article slug from list_articles'. This adds meaningful provenance and usage context beyond the bare schema property. It does not detail format or examples, but it is sufficient for a simple string identifier.

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 'One full licensed Monexus article as markdown plus metadata', specifying the resource (article), format (markdown), and content (full article with metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles, which likely returns summaries, and get_context/get_thread, which target different resources.

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 by instructing that the slug comes 'from list_articles', suggesting a workflow where list_articles is called first. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_context or search_wire, nor does it provide exclusions or conditional 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical operational trait: the tool is paid ($0.005/req or pass). It also implies a read-only nature via 'get' and describes output content. However, it does not mention error handling, response format beyond content components, or any access restrictions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a concise Args section. Every sentence contributes value—the first defines the tool, the second explains the parameter and cost. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does, what the parameter is, and a caveat about cost. It lacks details on return format and error behavior, but given the low complexity, these are not critical 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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates by explaining item_id as 'the thread/item id to build the context brief for'. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title, making the parameter's role immediately understandable.

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 produces a 'Full context brief for a thread' with components 'background, timeline and significance', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_thread which likely return raw thread data. The verb 'get' combined with the specific resource and output scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

Usage is implied by the description's focus on context briefs, suggesting it is meant for retrieving synthesized background and timeline rather than raw thread details. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with alternatives like get_thread, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002/req or pass) and the output scope (all wire items), but does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The 'or pass' wording is vague, adding some uncertainty rather than full transparency.

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 the core action in the first sentence and a clear Args section for the parameter. No fluff or redundancy; 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?

For a simple single-parameter get tool, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter source, and return content (all wire items). It does not describe a response schema, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete. Minor gaps remain around error cases and output structure details.

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 schema only names the parameter with minimal title, but the description fully compensates by explaining thread_id is the id returned by list_threads or search_wire. This gives the agent actionable guidance on how to obtain a valid value, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single event thread with all its wire items, using a specific verb (get) and resource (thread). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article, get_context, and list_threads by focusing on thread-specific wire items.

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 provides usage context by stating the thread_id should come from list_threads or search_wire, indicating this tool is intended for fetching a specific thread after listing/searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the guidance on where to obtain the ID implies the correct 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.002/req or pass), pagination via the 'before' cursor, and optional filters. However, it does not describe default ordering, return format, authentication requirements, error behavior, or other operational nuances. This is more informative than a bare description but still lacks significant behavioral depth.

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 very concise: a single lead sentence plus three short parameter definitions. No wasted words. The most important info (licensed articles, cost) appears first. The parameter list is structured and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (list with filters and pagination), and the description covers the basic filters and pagination. But with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of returned articles or how ordering works by default. It also omits any info on error handling or rate limits. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain all three: category (filter), limit (max count), before (pagination cursor with published-before semantics). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names, types, defaults. However, the explanations are minimal and do not include examples or constraints like maximum limit values.

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 identifies the tool as an index of 55,000+ licensed Monexus articles, which matches the 'list' function implied by the name. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_article (single article) and search_wire (search), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_wire or get_article. It implies usage through the list/filter/pagination context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over browsing categories or searching. The cost/availability note hints at licensing constraints but no clear if-then usage rules.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the tool is free and needs no key, and that it returns counts and timestamps. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe ordering, or mention any rate limits or response envelope.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence. Every part adds value: the resource type, the output highlights, and the access note. There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what the resource is, what fields are shown, and the auth requirement. It could be slightly richer about the exact return shape, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds the relevant context that no key is needed, which preemptively addresses a possible auth parameter question. With no params, baseline 4 is 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?

The description identifies the resource as a beat/category scoreboard and mentions what it contains (item counts and latest timestamps). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'list,' the name and 'scoreboard' make the listing behavior clear. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on articles, threads, or 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The only contextual hint is 'free, no key needed,' which is an access condition, not a usage scenario or exclusion. There are no alternatives named or when-not-to-use instructions.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about the data type ('live event threads', 'developing stories') and mentions a pricing/access policy ('paid, $0.002/req or pass'). However, it does not specify return format, pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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, compressed sentence that packs the core idea and a critical caveat into few words. It is fully front-loaded and every phrase earns its place. However, it is slightly cryptic—especially 'or pass'—which reduces clarity, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description conveys the essential topic but leaves ambiguity around 'or pass' and does not describe the return value or any limits. Since there is no output schema, these omissions are noticeable, and the description does not fully stand alone.

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 has zero parameters with 100% 'coverage' (trivially). Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-related detail, but none is needed.

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 identifies the resource being listed ('Live event threads') and explains their nature ('wire items clustered into developing stories'), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_thread or search_wire. The verb 'list' is not stated in the description, but the tool name supplies it, making the purpose clear enough.

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 this tool is used for accessing live event threads, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as get_thread or search_wire. It does mention a cost/availability caveat ('paid, $0.002/req or pass'), which hints at conditions of use, but there are no clear exclusions or comparisons.

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?

The description discloses that the tool is paid ($0.001/req or pass), which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or what happens when no filters are provided (beyond returning latest). Without annotations, this leaves some behavioral ambiguity, but the cost disclosure earns a middle score.

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 list of args. Every piece of information is useful and directly relevant. The description is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the return shape. It does not, nor does it mention ordering or edge cases. However, it does cover purpose and all parameters. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not 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?

All three parameters are explained in the description with specific semantics: category as a beat filter with examples, query as full-text search, limit with a range (1-100). The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates and adds constraints not present in the 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the latest wire items from Monexus Terminal, with optional filters. The name 'search_wire' and the description align, distinguishing it from article/thread siblings by resource type. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'searches' or 'retrieves' in the description, relying on the tool name for the 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?

No mention of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state that it is for wire items only or that alternatives exist for articles/threads. The description provides no contextual guidance on selection.

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