Wever Labs Agentic Rails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by stating 'No private records are fetched and no activity is invented,' which addresses data privacy and the deterministic nature of the output. This is consistent with the annotations and provides additional behavioral guarantees.

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The behavioral notes ('No private records are fetched and no activity is invented') are valuable additions without redundancy. Every sentence 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 the tool has an output schema (true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, behavioral guarantees, and implies the input structure. It does not explicitly mention that all three parameters are required, but the schema already marks them as required, so this is not a significant gap. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and its key constraints.

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%, with each parameter (as_of, services, queues) having a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond what the 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 states a specific verb ('Summarize'), a clear resource ('supplied service health and queue observations'), and a defined outcome ('into deterministic priorities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'prepare_work_order' and 'get_service_catalog' by focusing on summarization and prioritization rather than retrieval or 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?

The description implies its use when one has service health and queue observations and needs priorities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implicit 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it performs exact label matching and deliberately does not inspect or verify document contents.

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, no filler, with the core function first and the key limitation second. Every clause 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 two-parameter comparison tool, the description plus schema plus annotations is mostly sufficient. It names the return categories and the important limitation, though a brief note on which list is expected and which is available 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing property-level explanations. It describes the overall comparison but does not explain which array is the supplied set versus the required set, nor does it explicitly map 'matched' and 'missing' to available_evidence and expected_evidence.

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 ('Compare explicit submitted evidence labels'), a clear resource ('evidence labels'), and a precise outcome ('return exact matched and missing items'). It also differentiates itself from content-review tools by explicitly stating 'This does not read or verify document contents.'

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 makes clear this is for label-level inventory comparison, not for verifying document contents. The negative scope in the second sentence gives the agent a concrete condition for when to avoid using this tool, though it does not name an alternative like review_mcp_manifest.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds that the tool returns exactly four contracts and connection instructions, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral details like response format or potential edge cases. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and 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 tool with no parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, this description tells an agent exactly what will be returned (four contracts and connection instructions). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description correctly omits any param details.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('the four supported Labs computation contracts and connection instructions'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like build_operator_brief or check_evidence_inventory, none of which are about retrieving a catalog.

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 rather than explicit: an agent can infer that if it needs the supported Labs contracts, this is the tool to use. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a validation/preparation step and that submission and execution are separate, which clarifies the tool's non-executing behavior 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core action and the key scoping constraint (preparation only, not submission/execution) are front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a preparation tool with rich annotations and an output schema. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. It could mention what 'validated' entails, but the schema's detailed constraints cover much of that.

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 burden, but it only mentions 'validated' without explaining parameter semantics. The schema itself has detailed constraints (patterns, lengths, const for service_id), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is rich even though the description doesn't compensate.

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 ('prepare') and resource ('validated DiligenceOps task for a specific Connect recipient'), and clarifies that submission, permission, and execution are separate steps. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like build_operator_brief, but the resource and validation focus are 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 is a preparation step, not a submission or execution step, and notes that submission/recipient permission/execution remain separate. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the separation of concerns gives clear context for when to use it.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that the tool does not connect to a server or grant authority, which helps an agent understand side-effect and permission implications. This is valuable added transparency with no contradiction.

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 no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is a single useful second sentence. 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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks usage guidance and deeper parameter semantics, but the combination of annotations, schema, and description covers the core operational and safety aspects.

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 burden of explaining the 'tools' parameter. It only refers obliquely to 'submitted MCP tool declarations' and does not describe the array structure, required 'name' field, or annotation object expectations. Some semantic value is present, but it does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('Inventory', 'flag') and a clear resource ('submitted MCP tool declarations'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_evidence_inventory, but the subject matter is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 or when to choose an alternative. The sentence 'This does not connect to a server or grant authority' clarifies limitations but not usage context, so the agent is left without selection criteria.

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