door_acff25cbe9fb

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or the specific nature of the information provided. With no annotations to fill the gap, the description fails to clarify what actually happens when the tool is invoked.

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 short but not concise—it is vague and lacks a clear structure. It could be more direct and informative, but it does not waste words; however, it fails to convey essential information in a well-organized manner.

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 absence of an output schema and parameters, the description bears the full burden of explaining what the tool does and returns. It falls short by only vaguely describing the platform and agent actions, leaving an agent without enough context to use 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. As per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to cover parameter 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 the tool provides information about the platform and what visiting agents may do, but it lacks a specific action or clear outcome. It is not a tautology, yet it is too vague to differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'ask' or 'confirm'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that answers are 'grounded in the platform's own knowledge with cited sources', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like read-only nature, latency, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity.

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, immediately states the primary function, and provides key behavioral notes (grounding and citations) without redundancy. It wastes no words and front-loads the most critical 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?

For a simple query tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the scope of questions, and the nature of answers. One might wish for an explicit statement about return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this minor gap acceptable.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'question' with a clear description and character limit. The tool description adds contextual meaning by specifying the type of questions (capabilities, pricing, policies), which helps the agent formulate appropriate queries beyond the schema's literal definition.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('this platform') and enumerates the subject areas (capabilities, pricing, policies). It does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'about', but the description is clear on its own.

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 the sibling 'about' tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. There is no explicit 'when' or 'when not to use' context, leaving usage decisions to the agent's inference.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully covers idempotency (duplicate confirm returns original receipt), polling semantics (never consumes), the distinction between keyed quotes and bearer tokens (agent_key required for keyed quotes), payment behavior (always pinned price, never card numbers), and the special case of payment_link quotes. This is exemplary for a tool with no 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: execution semantics, idempotency, polling usage, payment handling, and keyed quotes. No redundant words. The structure flows logically from primary action to edge cases.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers execution, polling, payment nuances, and security considerations. The tool is complex (5 params, nested objects, payment flows), but the description addresses all critical behavioral aspects. No obvious gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds value by clarifying payment_credential vs payment alias, the 'never both' constraint, and the agent_key security note, but these largely reinforce what's in the schema. The description does not introduce entirely new parameter semantics beyond summarizing the schema, so a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Execute a quoted action. Confirming executes this action exactly once.' It specifies the resource (a quoted action) and the verb (execute/confirm). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'quote' by referencing the quote_id returned by quote and by covering polling for quotes awaiting approval, which is a distinct use case.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to execute a quoted action, to confirm a quote, and to poll quotes awaiting human approval. It also clarifies when not to use it or what to expect: duplicates return the original receipt, polling never consumes the quote, and payment_link quotes should be confirmed without a credential after human payment. It references the sibling 'quote' indirectly by noting the quote_id is returned by quote.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no key is needed for listing, the exact fields returned, and what happens when a keyed action is quoted without a key. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing that is a minor omission.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and output contents; the second adds a practical usage note about agent keys. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it names the resource, enumerates the returned fields, and clarifies the auth/key situation. No additional information is needed to call the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially comprehensive and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the returned entries contain, which is more useful than parameter documentation would be 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 description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('actions this platform has registered for visiting agents'), then enumerates what is returned: name, description, parameters, and key requirement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote or ask, which perform different operations.

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 provides clear context that no key is needed in advance, and explains the consequence of quoting a keyed action without one. This implies list_actions is the discovery step before quoting, though it does not explicitly contrast with about, ask, or confirm or state 'use this when you need to see available actions.'

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that nothing executes until confirm (no side effects), that quotes expire after 10 minutes, and that the quote pins the exact tool + args. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond what the schema provides.

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, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and expiry. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, non-execution, and expiry, but it omits the quote's key content—there is no mention of the cost/price/currency or the response shape beyond a quote_id. This leaves an agent uncertain what the actual quote will contain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description indirectly reinforces the 'tool' and 'args' parameters by saying the quote pins the exact tool + args, but it adds no per-parameter detail beyond the already-complete 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?

Clearly states 'Get a quote for one action call' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'confirm' by explaining that the quote returns a quote_id for confirm, so an agent knows this is the pricing/preview step, not the execution step.

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 an explicit usage condition: use quote to pin tool + args and get a quote_id before confirm. 'Nothing executes until confirm' tells the agent when not to rely on quote for execution. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives like list_actions or include a dedicated when-not-to-use section, so it stops short of a full 5.

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