work-access-tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the rate limit (50 calls/day), the cost model (1 WU per item), the authentication flow (api_key returned on first call and passed back), and that answers are verified by model consensus. It never describes the response shape or failure behavior, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by verification, pricing, and auth details in descending order of importance. Each sentence carries information, though the billing/credits passage is dense and could be tightened.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, auth, and item limits well. The significant remaining gap is the return value: nothing says what a categorization response contains or how consensus results are presented, which the description must supply since no output schema exists.

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 does: `items` maps to the up-to-10 listings, `labels` to custom labels, `api_key` to the token returned by the first response, and `work_answer` to optional credit-earning tasks. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the structure of the `work_answer` object is left unexplained.

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 ('Categorize product listings') plus the scope ('up to 10') and the two modes (standard taxonomy or 'your own labels'). Siblings (lock_acquire, package_exists) are unrelated, so no differentiation is required, and an agent can tell exactly what this does from the first sentence.

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?

Explains the operational flow clearly: free tier of 50 calls/day with no signup, then pass back the `api_key` from the first response, or earn credits via `work_answer` / prepay. It does not state when-not-to-use the tool or what happens if the quota is exhausted, but for an unrelated-sibling tool the practical usage context is well covered.

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. It does disclose useful operational facts — a 50 calls/day free tier, an api_key handshake, and a credit/prepay model — but says nothing about the core lock semantics: whether acquisition fails or blocks on contention, what a failed acquire returns, or what happens when the TTL expires. For a coordination primitive, that is a substantial 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but a large share of the body is monetization copy ('no signup', 'earn credits… or prepay') that is secondary for an agent deciding how to lock a resource. It is tight but not maximally earned.

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?

A 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than three sentences. Missing are the return payload beyond the api_key mention, contention/failure behavior, TTL meaning, and namespace/resource scoping — all of which an agent needs to call this 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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains two: api_key ('pass back from your first response') and work_answer ('optional tasks'). namespace, resource, holder, and especially ttl_seconds (bounded 5–3600) are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving an agent to guess at scoping and expiry 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 first sentence gives a clear verb and resource — 'Acquire a short-lived distributed lock' — plus the intent ('so only one agent works on a resource at a time'). It is distinguishable from lock_release by the word 'Acquire', but the description never names the sibling tools, so the contrast 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?

The mutual-exclusion rationale implies when to call it, and the quota line hints at a cost tradeoff. But there is no guidance on when NOT to lock, how it pairs with lock_release, how to choose a namespace, or what to do on contention — an agent must infer the acquire/release lifecycle.

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, and it does disclose real behavioral context: a 50 calls/day free quota, no signup, an api_key carried over from the first response, and a credit/work_answer or prepay path. That's useful rate-limit and auth information. However, it says nothing about what happens on release — whether it's idempotent, whether a mismatched token errors, or whether the lock is force-released — so the mutation semantics are opaque.

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 with the purpose front-loaded, so the agent gets the core action immediately. The quota/payment sentences are less central to invocation and read as promotional, but they are brief and not repeated.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the three required parameters entirely undefined and never describes the result of a successful or failed release. The quota/onboarding content is present while the mechanics an agent actually needs are missing.

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% across 5 parameters, including a nested work_answer object, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. It explains api_key ("from your first response") and gestures at work_answer ("optional tasks"), but the three required parameters — namespace, resource, and token — receive no explanation at all in either the schema or the description.

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 "Release a lock from lock_acquire" pairs a concrete verb with a concrete resource and names the sibling tool that creates the lock, so the agent can distinguish it from lock_acquire and package_exists. It stops short of a 5 because nothing explains what kind of lock this is or what releasing does to the underlying resource.

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 reference to lock_acquire implies the use case (release after acquiring), but that is inference rather than stated guidance. There's no mention of when not to call it, what happens if the lock was never acquired or already expired, or how it relates to package_exists/categorize_products beyond the one sibling reference.

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the free-tier limit (50 calls/day, no signup), the api_key bootstrap flow ('Pass back the api_key from your first response'), and credit mechanics via work_answer or prepay. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only/idempotent, nor does it explain error behavior when a package does not exist or quota is exhausted.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, which is appropriate. The two sentences about free calls and earning credits are somewhat promotional but also explain the non-obvious `api_key` and `work_answer` parameters, so they largely earn their place.

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-check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, authentication, and quota. It leaves gaps around return semantics (e.g., what is returned when the package does not exist) and parameter formats, which matter because there is no output schema or parameter documentation to fill them in.

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 adds useful meaning for `api_key` (returned in the first response, pass it back) and `work_answer` (optional tasks to earn credits), but it does not clarify the format of `name` (e.g., scoped packages or version specifiers) or the expected shape of the `work_answer` object. Compensation is partial for a 4-parameter tool.

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: 'Check whether a package really exists on npm or PyPI and get its latest version.' It defines the scope (npm/PyPI) and primary output (existence plus latest version), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use before installing or recommending a package.' There are no sibling tools that overlap with this function, so no alternative-routing guidance is needed, but it does not include explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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