ROBOTio — humanoid robots for events

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the three possible return states and the important fact that a successful check does not reserve the date (holding requires a quote request and payment). That non-binding nature is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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, no filler, with the core capability and its return values front-loaded and the constraint about date holding placed last. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the possible return states (available, limited, unavailable), and it covers the key non-obvious constraint about reservation. Minor gaps remain around the robots parameter's behavior and whether the check is instantaneous or queued.

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 67% — date and end_date are documented in the schema, while the robots parameter carries only default/min/max bounds. The description adds a little ('a date (or date range)', 'humanoid robots'), but it does not clarify the robots count semantics beyond what the schema already constrains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check) and resource (humanoid robot availability) with explicit scope for a single date or a range, and it even enumerates the three possible outcomes. It is clearly separable from get_catalog and request_quote.

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: the closing sentence about the date being held only after a quote request and payment hints that this is a pre-quote, non-binding check, but the description never explicitly says 'call this before request_quote' or states any exclusions. The workflow relationship to the sibling tool is left for the agent to infer.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, self-contained read. The description adds the useful context of what data the catalogue exposes (prices, terms, references, contact), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether the catalogue is static or per-request.

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 compact sentence-fragment that front-loads the resource name and then lists contents in priority order. Nothing is wasted, though the fragmentary style means it reads more like a label than an instruction.

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, one-optional-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the content overview is close to sufficient. It falls short by omitting the language parameter and any hint of the return shape or catalogue size.

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 single parameter 'lang' has 0% schema description coverage and an enum of en/cs, yet the description never mentions language selection at all. With schema coverage this low, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameter and does not.

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 resource (ROBOTio catalogue of humanoid robots for rent with operators) and enumerates the contents an agent can expect: event use cases, starting prices, terms, references and contact. It's a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 mention of the sibling tools check_availability or request_quote, which are the obvious alternatives once a visitor has seen the catalogue. An agent must infer that this is the browsing/overview step rather than the booking or pricing-request step.

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, and openWorldHint=true, so the outside-world send is known. The description adds meaningful context the annotations do not: the consent-gated workflow, the 24-hour e-mail reply, and the non-binding nature. It stops short of stating whether the request can be retracted or duplicated, which is the only remaining 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destination, followed by the consent requirement and the non-binding caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 16-parameter, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the consent and safety context well but leaves the parameter surface largely unexplained. An agent would still have to infer what most fields should contain, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 38% across 16 parameters, so the description would need to compensate. It mentions only name and e-mail in passing and explains nothing about event_date format, robots limits, wants_show constraints, language, or the agent/venue/guests fields – leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Send a quote request to ROBOTio') and immediately clarifies the nature of the action ('non-binding request, not a booking'), which separates it from a booking tool. An agent can tell this apart from check_availability and get_catalog without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit pre-condition workflow: show the user a summary and send only after explicit agreement to share name and e-mail. It also states the expected response channel and latency (e-mail within 24 hours), so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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