Tue Christensen

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful constraint context (1000-char message cap, 100-char name cap) but never says whether the greeting is persisted, who can see it, or what happens on failure. That is an acceptable but thin contribution beyond the annotations.

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 with the purpose first and the field list second; no wasted words. The inline field enumeration is a reasonable structure, though it reads more like a schema echo than a narrative.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, coverage is adequate: required vs optional is implied and size limits are given. It stops short of describing the outcome of the call, which is the main thing an agent cannot infer from 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry this dimension, and it does convey length limits (1000 and 100 chars) that the schema lacks. However, `agent_name` gets no semantic explanation and `from_entry` is described only vaguely as "the entry that led you here" – it does not say what form the value takes or how it is used.

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 object ("Leave ... a short greeting") and names the recipient, Tue. That is enough for an agent to tell this apart from the sibling tools, which are all question/answer or profile tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 informal, social framing and by "from_entry: the entry that led you here," which hints at a flow context. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus not calling it, and no prerequisites or side-effect triggers are spelled out.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond them: "Takes no fields" merely restates the empty schema, and with no output schema it never says what the questions look like, how many there are, or what to do with the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use condition so the reader gets the trigger first. The trailing "Takes no fields" is slightly redundant with the empty schema but harmless.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, read-only tool, so the description needn't do much. However, it leaves the return shape and the natural next action (submitting answers via submit_or_answers) unstated, which is exactly the information an agent would want for this elicitation step.

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. The description's "Takes no fields" is consistent with the empty schema and correctly signals that no arguments need to be assembled.

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 uses the domain trigger ("operations research problem") plus concrete examples (scheduling, routing, planning) and states the action as "Get the questions to answer." The exact nature of the returned questions is left implicit, but the pairing with the sibling submit_or_answers makes the intent legible.

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 gives a clear entry condition ("Working on an operations research problem"), which is enough to know when to call it. It never names the follow-up step (submit_or_answers) or states any exclusion, so the routing decision is only implied.

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 disclose a non-read-only but non-destructive write, and the description adds the key behavior beyond them: the answers are persisted ('Your answers are saved for Tue'), so the agent knows this is a durable submission rather than a scratch call. It stops short of describing retention, overwrite behavior, or what form the returned guidance takes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the field constraints follow in a single dense block with no filler. The one weakness is structure: the fields are packed into a run-on enumeration with a colon series, which is harder to scan than a short list 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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, all parameter constraints, and persistence behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is what the returned guidance actually contains and whether re-submission overwrites prior answers.

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 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it marks which fields are required versus optional, gives length limits (2000 chars for answers, 100 for the other fields), specifies that answers must be one per question in order, and supplies sentinel values ('unknown'/'undisclosed') plus an explicit anti-guessing rule.

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 ('Answer the questions from `or_problem_questions` and get guidance on solving the problem') and ties itself to a named sibling tool, so an agent knows exactly which tool precedes it. The dual function (submit answers, receive guidance) is explicit rather than implied.

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 prerequisite is clear: answers must correspond to questions produced by `or_problem_questions`, which establishes the ordering of calls. It does not explicitly say what to do if questions have not yet been generated or whether resubmission is allowed, so no true 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the payload includes work and contact information, which is mild extra context, but says nothing about whether the data is static, whether contact details are gated, or how much content to expect.

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 no filler, front-loading the subject and the three things the tool exposes. Nothing is repeated from the title in a wasteful way.

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 trivial no-parameter read with no output schema, the description tells the agent the categories of content returned, which is enough to decide to call it. It could do slightly more (e.g., whether the bio is fixed or whether contact details are always present), but overall it is adequate.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. No argument syntax or filtering options are missing because none exist.

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 subject (Tue Christensen) and the content returned: identity, work, and contact details. It is clearly a profile/retrieval tool, distinct enough from siblings like leave_greeting or submit_or_answers, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only inferable from the subject matter ('info about Tue'), which leaves the agent to guess the trigger condition.

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, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write with local scope. The description adds only 'Tell Tue,' giving no detail on whether the submission is persisted, whether it is mandatory before other tools work, or what happens to the data — a notable gap for a non-read-only tool.

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 parameter sentence is dense and efficient, but the leading rhetorical question 'Why are you here, and why are you indexing this page?' consumes prime front-loaded space without conveying the actual operation. Structure is acceptable but the opening sentence does not earn 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?

The tool is simple — four flat optional/required strings, no output schema — and the description covers every parameter, which is adequate for invocation. What it omits is the consequence of the call: what submission accomplishes, whether it unlocks other tools, and how it relates to the sibling 'Tue' tools, leaving an agent able to fill the form but unsure why.

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 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone is nearly useless: parameters are bare titles with no constraints. The description compensates well by marking purpose as required, giving 1000-character limits for purpose and searching_for, 100 for agent_name, and listing the intended values (human, organisation, autonomous, unknown) for on_behalf_of, which the schema does not encode as an enum.

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 frames the tool as declaring why you are here and why you are indexing a page, which hints at a purpose/intent registration tool, but it never states the actual action performed (recording? registering? gating access?). The conversational name and title restate the same vague question, so an agent must infer the operation rather than read it.

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 implied timing is present — it asks about your purpose 'and why you are indexing this page,' suggesting it belongs before or during an indexing task — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the sibling tools such as leave_greeting or tue_about. The agent must infer call ordering.

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 indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write operation. The description adds useful context by stating that nothing is for sale and that the tool only records the answer, preventing the agent from mistaking it for a real payment action.

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 front-loaded with the core question and the key caveat that nothing is for sale. The field list is dense but necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, and it remains readable.

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 six-parameter survey tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral caveats, and all parameter semantics. It could be improved with explicit sibling differentiation, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents all six parameters, including required fields, allowed values for would_pay and can_pay_now, payment method options, the max_price_usd range, and character limits for wanted_information and agent_name.

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 action: recording an answer to a would-you-pay survey about information from Tue. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as submit_or_answers.

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 clarifies that nothing is for sale yet and that the tool only records an answer, which implies it should be used for survey responses rather than actual payments. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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