WIA Standards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the values come from a published stats file, which signals the numbers are a static snapshot rather than a live query and may lag the catalog.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource and the returned counts leading. The trailing Korean translation is redundant for an agent but costs little beyond a few tokens.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient on its own — it enumerates the count categories, which effectively substitutes for the missing output schema. Only the absence of freshness/pagination context keeps it from being fully complete, and for a zero-arg stats read that is a minor gap.

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 and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior that does not 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (catalog statistics) and enumerates what the counts cover: standards, sub-standards, simulators, ebooks. It is clearly distinct in kind from content-reading siblings like get_standard and read_standard_spec, though it never names them explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is for aggregate counts rather than retrieving or searching standards content. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as search_standards for anything beyond totals.

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 the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the return payload includes a README excerpt capped at 4,000 characters, a spec file list, and ebook languages/links. No auth or rate-limit details, but those are not crucial for this simple read.

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 English portion is a single front-loaded sentence that earns its place by listing the returned items. The appended Korean translation duplicates the purpose and is the only minor waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and return contents, and annotations cover safety. It lacks sibling routing guidance or error behavior for an invalid slug, leaving a small gap.

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 should compensate. It states the parameter is a 'slug', which mirrors the schema property name and adds minimal semantic meaning; format constraints (pattern, maxLength) remain only 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Overview of one WIA standard') and enumerates the returned contents (README excerpt, spec file list, ebook languages/links), which differentiates it from search_standards and read_standard_spec.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are named. The description implies it is for retrieving a standard overview, but an agent must infer this from the purpose alone.

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, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: reading happens in pages of up to 12,000 characters, implying offset-based paging. It stops short of explaining what happens at end-of-file or what occurs when 'file' is omitted.

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 English content is two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The appended Korean restatement adds no information for a single-language agent, slightly diluting conciseness, though it may serve localization.

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 read-only paging tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and page-size constraint. It omits end-of-file/pagination-termination behavior and the role of offset across pages, which an agent consuming a long spec would need.

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 only 25% across 4 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does clarify the 'file' parameter by example and effectively documents max_chars' ceiling (12,000 characters), but offset's paging role and slug are left to the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (WIA standard specification markdown file), with a concrete example (PHASE-1-DATA-FORMAT.md) and scope (pages of up to 12,000 characters). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_standard, which only lists files.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow prerequisite: 'Use get_standard first to list files.' This routes the agent correctly among siblings, though it offers no when-not-to-use case or guidance for handling a spec that exceeds the page size.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that closed-corpus, safe-read profile. It adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (id, title, short summary, links) and clarifying that the catalog is WIA's own standards rather than ISO/IEC. Pagination behavior via limit/offset is not described.

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 English portion is front-loaded and waste-free: purpose, scope boundary, then return fields. The appended Korean sentence is a pure duplicate of the first clause and adds no new information, a minor redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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 correctly spends its words on return fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple read-only search tool it is nearly complete, with the only real gap being pagination/limit semantics and sibling routing.

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 only 33% – query has an example, but limit and offset carry no descriptions at all. The description never compensates: it says nothing about query syntax, result capping, or how offset pagination should be used, so an agent has no guidance on two of the three parameters.

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 ('Search the WIA standards catalog') and scopes the corpus as hundreds of WIA-authored specifications across industries. It also draws a useful boundary against external corpora ('not ISO/IEC international standards'), though it never names a sibling tool such as get_standard or get_catalog_stats for follow-up retrieval.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against the three sibling tools. An agent must infer on its own that this is the discovery step and get_standard is the fetch step.

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