arhiiv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details such as including 'links.html for citation' and listing the types of data returned, which goes beyond 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundant content. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists most returned data fields (biography, education, materials, etc.) and mentions links.html, which is fairly complete for a retrieval tool.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'slug'. The description adds context that the slug comes from search_artists, enhancing understanding.

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 retrieves a single artist by slug and lists specific data fields (biography, education, materials, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_exhibition or get_organization by focusing on the artist entity.

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 mentions the slug can be obtained from search_artists, implying a workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_artists or when not to use it.

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 and openWorldHint. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., error handling, permissions). No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, no unnecessary 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, the description lists all returned fields. The tool is simple (one param, no nesting). Could mention error behavior, but adequate for the 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?

The single parameter 'slug' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating it's an identifier for the exhibition, adding essential meaning.

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 retrieves an exhibition by slug and lists the fields returned (description, curator, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_exhibitions and get_artist.

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 use when you have a specific slug but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_exhibitions, and no contraindications.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (description, linked-data, exhibition count, graph relations), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations' safety flags.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one organization by slug') and efficiently lists content and examples. No redundant or extraneous 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 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It lists key return fields, though could mention that the response may be null if slug not found (implied by openWorldHint). Still, sufficient for a single-param lookup.

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 only defines 'slug' as a required string with no description. The description provides meaning by stating 'by slug' and listing organization types, adding context beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves an organization by slug, specifies the types (school, gallery, museum, association), and lists returned data (description, linked-data, exhibition count, graph relations). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_artist or get_exhibition.

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 says to use this tool to get an organization by slug. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the single required parameter and clear purpose make usage straightforward. Sibling tools are listed, providing implicit alternatives.

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=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail: every edge carries its source citation and target URL. No contradictions.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and examples, then add constraint info. No redundant 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, the description explains the purpose, parameters, and response format (edges with citation and URL). It could mention pagination or limits, but is fairly complete for a simple relation listing tool.

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 33% (only relation_type has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining entity_type values and listing possible relation types, but does not describe the slug parameter. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 walks the knowledge graph around an entity, lists specific relation types (e.g., STUDIED_UNDER, HELD_BY) and entity types (artist, work, exhibition, organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_artist which fetch single entities.

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 explains when to use the tool (to explore connections from an entity) and gives concrete examples of relations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is well implied.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific behavioral context (returned data: counts, year coverage, timestamp), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 conveys all essential information concisely, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key output.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, the description covers the returned data types. However, it lacks details on the structure (e.g., whether counts are separate fields or in an object). No output schema exists to fill this gap, so completeness is slightly reduced.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 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 archive-wide published counts for multiple entity types, year coverage, and timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities or 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the archive-wide scope implies it's for overview, while siblings are for specific entities or searches. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details about merging event types and sorting by year, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the action and output, second gives a use case. No unnecessary 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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains purpose, scope, and event types. Could mention if events are inclusive of both years, but overall 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?

Parameter description coverage is 0%. The description implies the two integer parameters represent a year range but does not specify inclusiveness, bounds, or format. Partial compensation for lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'merged, year-sorted events between two years' with specific event types. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities or searches.

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 for use ('Great for a chronological overview of Estonian jewellery art'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, though siblings are available.

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 and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by listing returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint, 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields adequately, though it could optionally mention slug format constraints.

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 0%, but the description explains the slug parameter's purpose ('by slug'), compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 retrieves one work by slug and enumerates the returned fields (description, dimensions, images, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_works (list) and get_artist (different entity).

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 when you have a slug, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_works (when slug is unknown) or provide exclusions.

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=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds context about the output (artist cards with work/exhibition counts and canonical page URLs) and the scope (Estonian jewellery/metalwork artists), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and key attributes, making it easy to scan and parse. Every phrase adds value.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description explains the return format (paginated cards with counts and URLs) and the domain. It lacks details on pagination defaults or how to get subsequent pages, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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%, with explicit descriptions for query, school, and category. The description adds the concept of 'graduation-year range' (covering grad_year_from and grad_year_to) but does not explain page or category further. The description compensates partially for the uncovered parameters, but does not fully detail every parameter meaning.

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 verb (Search), the resource (artist registry), and the specific filters (name, school, graduation-year range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_artist (single artist) and other search tools by specifying the domain (Estonian jewellery/metalwork artists) and the output (paginated cards with counts and URLs).

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 mentions available filters (name, school, graduation-year range) and that results are paginated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artist for a single artist. The context from sibling tools implies differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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 and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns paginated exhibition cards with specific fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and output structure. Every part 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?

With no output schema, the description covers return fields but lacks pagination details (page size, defaults). Additionally, parameter usage (exact match, partial) is not clarified. Adequate but has gaps.

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 mentions 'by title, year, or organizer,' mapping to query, year, and organization_slug. However, the 'page' parameter is omitted, and the mapping is not fully explicit (e.g., 'query' for title).

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 resource (exhibition database) and searchable fields (title, year, organizer). It distinguishes from sibling tools that are get-specific or search other entities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_exhibition. Usage context is implied by the search parameters, but no when-not-to or comparisons.

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 and openWorldHint. The description adds return field details (master, town, active years, citing source), enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, covering purpose, parameters, and audience without extraneous 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 description is adequate for a simple search tool with annotations covering safety and open world, but it omits explanation of the optional 'page' parameter, which is important for pagination.

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 already describes town, query, and century; description merely summarizes these. It does not clarify the 'page' parameter, which lacks a schema description, and offers no additional detail beyond the 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 the verb 'search', the specific resource 'historical Estonian goldsmiths' maker's marks', and distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting artists, exhibitions, press, and works.

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 mentions search criteria (lettering, town, century) and audience, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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 and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is 'backed by the archive timeline,' providing context about data source. However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, or behavior without parameters, leaving minor gaps.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a minor detail. Every word 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?

The description covers purpose and filters adequately, but does not explain return values, result structure, or pagination. Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity, some questions remain about output format.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'query' filters against source title/publication and year parameters define a range. This adds significant meaning but lacks per-parameter details like format or inclusivity.

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 finds press and publication sources, specifies the scope (Estonian newspapers via DEA, monographs), and indicates filtering by year range and text query. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artists or search_exhibitions.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit. The description says 'Find press and publication sources' suggesting when to use, but it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives (e.g., for artists use search_artists).

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns paginated work cards with specific fields, providing contextual behavior beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences: first states purpose and searchable fields, second describes return format. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential 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?

Provides a good overview of search capabilities and return format. However, missing details on pagination defaults, search semantics (AND/OR), and how query interacts with other fields. Given no output schema, it's fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists searchable fields (title, artist, material, year range, for-sale status) which maps to several parameters, but lacks explicit mapping and format details for all 7 parameters.

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 searches jewellery works/objects by specific fields (title, artist, material, year range, or for-sale status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_work or search_artists.

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 when to use this tool (when searching works by criteria) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_work for direct ID lookup.

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