Lattis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns markdown content but fails to mention side effects, error handling, rate limits, authorization requirements, or what happens if the page doesn't exist.

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 sentence plus a usage hint, front-loading the purpose and providing actionable context. Every word contributes value, with no 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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage pattern (after search), and return format (full markdown). It lacks details on error cases or prerequisites, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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% as both parameters ('site' and 'path') are described in the input schema with examples. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 returns 'the full markdown of one page on an indexed site,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (page). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'sitedex_search' by positioning it as the follow-up action after search.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool after 'search' points to a URL and you want the whole page, providing clear context for when to use. It implicitly excludes use when only a snippet is needed, though it does not enumerate alternatives beyond search.

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 explicitly enumerates what the tool returns (name, description, category, page count, buyer questions, AI artifacts), making its behavior transparent. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but it clearly indicates a read-only operation.

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 sentence that efficiently lists all key output fields without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose.

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 lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all returned elements (name, description, category, page count, buyer questions, AI artifacts). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor improvement would be noting the output format (e.g., JSON).

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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'site' with format examples (domain or slug). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 that the tool returns a site profile including the AI Visibility Score, name, description, category, page count, buyer questions, and installed AI-readable artifacts. It specifies 'for one domain,' which, combined with sibling tool names like 'sitedex_get_page' and 'sitedex_list_sites,' clearly distinguishes its 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 implies usage for retrieving a single domain's profile, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'sitedex_get_page' (for a page) or 'sitedex_list_sites' (for listing sites). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, or provide alternative recommendations.

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. It discloses the output fields (title, URL, path) but does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. The limit parameter is noted in the schema but not in the description.

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 clear sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage context with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description is complete enough: it states the tool's function, usage timing, and basic output. Could mention pagination or the limit parameter's role, but overall adequate.

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 50% (only 'site' has a description). The description repeats 'domain or slug' but adds no extra meaning for 'limit' beyond the schema. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 lists indexed paths for a domain, including title, URL, and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sitedex_search and sitedex_get_page by specifying its use for browsing site structure.

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 advises using it to browse a site's structure before searching or fetching, providing clear context. It implies alternatives but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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 burden. It lists the return fields but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter (which is in schema). For a list tool, 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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence describes output fields, second sentence gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and the description is front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return fields and usage differentiation from siblings. It could mention ordering or whether the list is exhaustive, but overall it is mostly complete for its complexity level.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond saying 'every website', which implies the list might be limited. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 it lists every indexed website with specific fields (name, category, page count, AI Visibility Score). The phrase 'Use it to discover what is available before searching' distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before searching, providing clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contrast with searching is effective.

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. It discloses that the tool searches all indexed websites and returns ranked passages with specific fields. However, it omits behavioral traits such as whether it mutates data, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds some context but is not sufficiently comprehensive.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and return information. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic return format but lacks details like result ordering, handling of no results, pagination, or example output. It is minimally adequate for a search tool but leaves some gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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% for the three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., 'Pass `site` to scope to one domain' is somewhat redundant). According to the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no additional detail provided to raise the score.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search every indexed website.' It specifies the output (ranked markdown passages with source URL, heading path, relevance score) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_page, get_site, list_pages, list_sites) by focusing on cross-site querying.

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?

Provides guidance on using the `site` parameter to scope to a domain, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools. Could be improved by stating alternatives like 'Use sitedex_get_site for site metadata' or 'Use this for broad searches; use sitedex_get_page for a specific page.'

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