XCOPYBook

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: footnotes are returned, and long chapters are paged by paragraph rather than truncated — useful for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and pagination caveat second. Nothing to cut.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: content, footnotes, and pagination. Minor gaps remain around whether pagination metadata (total paragraphs) is returned and what happens on an unknown slug.

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; it does clarify that 'slug' identifies the chapter and that paging is by paragraph, hinting at what limit/offset mean. However, it never states that limit counts paragraphs, nor mentions the default of 40 or the max of 80, leaving the agent to guess units and sensible 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Text of one chapter by slug') plus the notable inclusion of footnotes, which is more precise than the title 'Get chapter'. It implicitly contrasts with list_chapters by scoping to 'one chapter', but never names the sibling, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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 the tool for fetching chapter content versus listing chapters. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_book or list_chapters, and no prerequisites (e.g., slug must come from list_chapters or a work's chapter listing).

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating the returned content (identity, public links, biography with sources, added statement) — useful since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens for an unknown slug.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and returned payload come first. Slight terseness as a noun fragment rather than a full clause is the only cost.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, describing the returned content is the main remaining burden and the description meets it. Only the unknown-slug/error behavior is unaddressed, which 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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description does the minimum by tying 'slug' to the collector identifier. It does not clarify slug format or provenance (URL path form vs. internal id), so an agent still has to guess what a valid slug looks like.

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 the specific resource (a collector profile) and its scope (one, by slug), which is enough to distinguish it from list_collectors and search_works without opening the schema. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve/fetch'), so the operation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by slug' hints at the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as list_collectors for enumeration or search_book-style lookup. The agent must infer that this is a single-record fetch keyed on a known slug.

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, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes only a vague sketch of return contents ('scope, chain state and counts') with no explanation of freshness, caching, cost, or what 'chain state' actually means.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the reader is left to decode 'XCOPY', 'scope', and 'counts'. A few more words would have cost little and added much.

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 and no parameters, so the description is the only place a caller can learn what comes back. It names three vague categories but never says what a 'count' counts or what 'chain state' includes, leaving the caller unable to predict the response shape.

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. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 phrase 'XCOPY registry scope, chain state and counts' names the resource and hints at three categories of returned data, but there is no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_chapter or get_token. An agent can guess this reads registry-level metadata, but 'XCOPY' is unexplained jargon.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_chapter, get_work, or the list_* tools. Usage is only inferable from the name 'get_registry_info'; no prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the result includes the token's work, but does not describe error behavior, lookup failure conditions, or response shape.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the key lookup criteria are front-loaded. The phrase "with its work" is somewhat vague but does add useful scope information efficiently.

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 three-parameter lookup with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core lookup and notes that work data is included. It still leaves return-value details and edge-case behavior unspecified, which matters more because there is no output 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 parameter meaning. It clarifies that chain, contract, and tokenId together identify a token and gives chain examples (eip155:1 or eip155:360), but it does not explain expected contract address formatting or token ID semantics.

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 retrieval operation: one token identified by chain, contract address, and token ID. It also notes that the result includes the token's work, which helps distinguish it from pure metadata lookups, though it is terse and does not explicitly contrast with get_work or search_works.

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 identifiers imply that this is a direct single-token lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of search_works, get_work, or other sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection logic are provided.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result includes the work's tokens and sources, though it does not discuss missing-record behavior or output structure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the definition is largely complete: it identifies the resource, accepted identifier types, and that tokens and sources are returned. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and exact return shape.

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. It does clarify that the sole 'work' parameter accepts a stable id or slug, which is meaningful, but it does not specify format constraints or examples beyond that.

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 and resource: retrieve one XCOPY work by stable id or slug, including tokens and sources. This clearly separates exact retrieval from broader listing/search tools like search_works, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'by stable id or slug' implies the tool should be used when an exact identifier is known, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_works or list_chapters. The usage context is inferable but not stated as 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that this returns a table of contents and supports group filtering, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or response shape beyond that.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then supplies the optional filter values. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly, including the filter values. Minor omissions such as ordering or pagination are unlikely to prevent 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 coverage is 0%, and the schema only defines a generic string for group without allowed values. The description compensates substantially by listing the valid group values: front-matter, essays, editions, collectors, dao, conclusion, and reference. It still lacks details such as case sensitivity, exact-match behavior, or default when omitted.

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 as the table of contents of XCOPYBook and indicates it can be filtered by group. It is distinguishable from get_chapter, which retrieves a single chapter, though sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by group' implies the primary usage context, and the listed group values clarify what filtering is possible. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chapter or search_book.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the useful fact that results are scoped to profiles published on XCOPYBook, but says nothing about pagination via limit or what happens with an empty query.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded ahead of the searchable fields. Nothing redundant or repeated from structured fields.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is thin on match semantics, result ordering, and how limit interacts with the result set, which an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents only types, defaults, and bounds. The description partially compensates by explaining that query matches name or alias, which is real added meaning, but it never mentions limit, its default of 50, or its 200 cap.

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?

Names a specific resource (collector profiles published on XCOPYBook) and its filterable dimensions (name or alias), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_collector_profile and search_works. It lacks an explicit verb ("list" only appears in the title), so the operation type is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the browse/list path while get_collector_profile is the single-record path, and nothing says whether query is a substring, prefix, or fuzzy match.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that — matching requires ALL query words, i.e. conjunctive matching — but says nothing about ranking, result shape, or how paging behaves at the cap.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the essential matching rule is front-loaded. Minor cost: "passages in the book and collector profiles" is slightly ambiguous to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 is the only place an agent could learn what comes back — passages with highlights, ranked or unranked, truncated by limit — and it says none of that, nor how limit interacts with results. For a search tool with zero schema documentation, this leaves a real 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 must compensate and it partly does: it defines query as a conjunctive word match. The limit parameter (default 20, max 50) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb ("Find passages") and a bounded resource scope ("the book and collector profiles"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling search_works. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with search_works, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 scope: use this for book passages and collector profiles, presumably search_works for works. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing from the scope phrase 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior ('Empty query lists all'), but says nothing about result truncation, pagination, or ordering despite a limit parameter capped at 200 — a real gap for an agent scanning results.

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 core matching behavior is front-loaded and the empty-query fallback follows immediately as a useful caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover the safety side. However, with zero schema descriptions on three parameters, the definition should have addressed result limiting/truncation and match semantics to be fully actionable.

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 parameter meaning. It clarifies that query matches title or slug and that corpus scopes the search, but the limit parameter — including the 200 maximum and default of 50 — is entirely undocumented, and matching semantics (substring vs exact) remain ambiguous.

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 XCOPY works') plus the matched fields ('by title or slug'), which is enough to separate it from get_work (single-item retrieval) and search_book. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'optionally within a corpus' and 'Empty query lists all' imply the two main usage modes, one of which is an enumeration fallback. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_book/get_work guidance and no stated preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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