Wraps

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds observable behavior beyond that: the Wraps fee is independent of volume, the AWS pipeline items derive from emails and event types, and the events parameter is accepted but inert. These details are not present in the annotations and help an agent understand side effects and limitations. It does not describe the output structure, but that is not a behavioral trait per se.

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 paragraph of moderate length, but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains key caveats. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'six variables interact' is somewhat vague) but remains efficient and well-structured.

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 has 7 parameters and 4 enums, the description covers the input logic thoroughly. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify what the return value looks like (e.g., a breakdown or a single number). While the tool's purpose suggests a cost figure, an agent would benefit from knowing the response format to use the result correctly. This is a notable gap for a tool of this 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds non-trivial context: it clarifies that the Wraps fee does not vary with volume (relevant to 'tier' and 'billing'), that the AWS-side lines depend on emails sent and event types (relevant to 'emails' and 'events'), and that the events parameter is accepted for backward compatibility but currently ignored. This elevates understanding beyond the schema's plain 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?

The description opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the real monthly cost of running email on Wraps + AWS'. It lists the major components (Wraps fee, SES, EventBridge, etc.) and is distinct from the sibling documentation tools (get_doc, list_docs, search_docs), which serve unrelated goals. An agent can immediately identify this is a cost-estimation tool.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of doing the arithmetic — six variables interact'. It warns about the backward-compatible 'events' parameter that does not affect the current estimate, clarifying when to rely on it. While it does not name alternatives, the context and instruction to use this over manual calculation is sufficient.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety. The description adds meaningful context by stating it returns raw markdown source rather than rendered content, which is useful and not redundant with the 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 two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful prerequisite. 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 the simple single-parameter APIable, the description supplies enough context: what is returned, how to find valid paths, and the scoped nature of the operation. A small gap is not clarifying behavior for invalid paths, but this is not critical for basic use.

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 covers the path parameter well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context about the parameter by directing users to list_docs first to discover valid paths.

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 begins with a specific action and object: 'Return the full markdown source of one Wraps page.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools by emphasizing singular page retrieval.

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 provides clear practical guidance: 'Call list_docs first to see which paths have markdown.' This strongly implies when to call this tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_docs.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level transparency (what is returned: all pages with one-line descriptions) but no additional behavioral details like auth, pagination, or side effects. Given the strong annotation coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 sentence that delivers all relevant information: what is returned, the scope, and the content format. No filler, no repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded with 'Return the Wraps llms.txt index'.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, this description is complete. It explains the output contents clearly enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and to know what to expect, even though no output schema is provided.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is still useful for indicating that no filtering or arguments are needed, aligning with the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 the operation ('Return the Wraps llms.txt index') and specifies the exact scope: every documentation page, product page, guide, and SDK reference. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_doc or search_docs without needing to infer from the tool name.

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: use this tool when you want the complete index of all Wraps documentation. It does not explicitly name siblings or exclusion conditions, but the phrase 'every documentation page' makes the broad-list use case obvious, and there are no ambiguous edge cases.

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=true, and the description adds that it returns markdown sections and covers the full documentation scope. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them, making behavior transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. Every sentence earns its 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 search tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering parameters, the description provides sufficient detail: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('search'), a clear resource ('full Wraps documentation'), and the output format ('matching sections as markdown'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (get_doc, list_docs) by its search functionality.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this first for any "how do I ... with Wraps" question.' This clearly indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_doc for retrieving a specific doc, but the sibling names and the 'first' phrasing provide sufficient context.

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