sift-tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a calculation (implying read-only, deterministic behavior) and that results match a specific external guide, but it does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or output format.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds useful provenance without padding.

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 simple (2 optional params, fully documented schema), and the description states what is computed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return structure or behavioral guarantees, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (frame_size enum and include_corners boolean). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the baseline for high 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Calculate') and two concrete resources ('portal frame block requirements' and 'Echo Shard budget') for a named gateway. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_sift_portal_coordinates (coordinates) and diagnose_sift_ignition (diagnosis).

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives. 'Matches thesiftguide.com bill of materials' adds context about the source but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over its 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 1:4 compression semantics and that the output mirrors an external reference algorithm (implying deterministic, spec-faithful results), but it never states that the tool is a pure, side-effect-free computation, nor how coordinate pairs outside the conversion domain are handled.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the verb/resource is front-loaded and the algorithmic-fidelity caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should have told the agent what is returned (a single converted coordinate pair versus all three realms), and that gap is left open. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, but the return shape is never addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only the '(1:4 compression ratio)' gloss on the ratio parameter and does not clarify the asymmetric 'direction' enum (which offers nether_to_sift but no return directions) or default behavior.

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 (Convert), resource (coordinates), and scope (Overworld, Nether, The Sift) with the governing 1:4 ratio. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling tools (materials budget, ignition diagnosis), so an agent knows exactly what this does before opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: referencing 'thesiftguide.com algorithm' signals this is the canonical portal-coordinate converter, but the description never states when to reach for it versus the sibling tools or any precondition. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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 does disclose two useful traits: the output is diagnostic recommendations ('actionable next steps') and the logic is deterministic against thesiftguide.com rules. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, which is the main gap.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. The second sentence on rule provenance is useful but slightly redundant with the purpose statement.

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 diagnostic tool with fully documented schema, defaults, and no output schema to explain, the description covers what it does and the nature of its output. Only the safety/read-only posture is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, enum-constrained, and defaulted. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Diagnose) and resource (Sift portal ignition issues), and the second sentence clarifies it returns actionable next steps. It is functionally distinct from the sibling calculators, though it never names them explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'ignition issues' implies the triggering condition but leaves the agent to infer it rather than stating it.

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