door_acff25cbe9fb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does state that the tool returns platform information and permissible agent activities, implying a read-only informational behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm that there are no side effects or describe the response format.

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 conveys the tool's purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, so this is genuinely concise rather than under-specified.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description covers the essential content, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means it could usefully say more about what the returned overview includes and that calling it has no side effects. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is simply nothing to document beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states what the tool provides—an overview of the platform and what visiting agents are allowed to do—so its informational purpose is evident. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling action tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The only contextual hint ('visiting agents') implies an entry-point use, but the agent is left to infer that it should call this before ask, confirm, list_actions, or 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that answers are grounded in the platform's own knowledge and include cited sources, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., scope of knowledge, format of citations) or side effects (though obviously read-only). This is adequate but not rich.

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 tool's purpose and key behavioral trait (cited, grounded answers). There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and structured correctly.

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 Q&A tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential intent and a behavioral guarantee (grounded, cited). It omits details like the answer format or whether the tool can refuse questions, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool. The description is reasonably 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 100%, meaning the only parameter 'question' is fully described in the schema ('The question, in plain language (max 2000 chars)'). The description adds almost no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 identifies a verb ('Ask') and a resource ('this platform'), with specific topics (capabilities, pricing, policies) and a grounding/citation promise. It is not a tautology and is more specific than a generic 'ask' tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'about' which might serve a similar purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (about, confirm, list_actions, quote). It simply states what it does without exclusions or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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.