lesgooo.fun

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further by specifying that only selected values are returned, that the plan is never modified, and that a write tool must be invoked only after explicit confirmation. The host-capability fallback (no forms -> chat or open_planner) is behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the read-only/confirmation constraint, then the fallback path. No filler, every clause carries operational 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?

For a two-parameter read-only collector with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics, mutation gating, and environment fallback. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it, and no return-value documentation is required since there is no output schema.

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%, so the description carries the burden; it enumerates the five detail categories (availability, RSVP, place, expense, event) that map directly onto the action enum values, giving each choice concrete meaning. The 'plan' identifier parameter is left unexplained, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: it collects missing plan details (availability, RSVP, place, expense, event) via a native form. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the write siblings (set_availability, set_rsvp, add_place, add_expense, update_event) by declaring it returns values and never changes a plan.

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?

Gives when-to-use (missing availability/RSVP/place/expense/event details), when-not (never writes a plan), the follow-up condition (call the write tool only after explicit user confirmation), and a named alternative for hosts without forms (ask in chat or use open_planner).

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: empty or general searches return no results, and it never enumerates plans. This tells the agent exactly what input is required and what failure looks like, which is meaningful 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every clause earns its place: the purpose, the accepted input types, the failure condition, and the enumeration prohibition.

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 resolution tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what to pass and what happens on invalid input. It does not describe the return shape (e.g., what a resolved plan or mention looks like), but the context and failure semantics are sufficient for typical use, leaving only a minor gap.

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 a single query parameter and zero schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It specifies that the query must be an explicitly supplied lesgooo saved-plan link or exact ID, which is essential semantic information not present in the schema. It does not give format examples, but it compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('lesgooo saved-plan link or exact ID') and clarifies the context ('for the desktop mention picker'). It implicitly separates itself from general search or enumeration tools by stating that empty or general searches return no results and that it never enumerates plans. However, it does not name a sibling tool (e.g., get_plan) to explicitly differentiate itself, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: only with an explicitly supplied link or exact ID. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition: empty or general searches return no results and it never enumerates plans. No alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to avoid misuse.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what is returned (open and done items, each with item_id), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or authorization needs 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and returned payload are stated immediately.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Usage routing to sibling checklist tools remains the only gap.

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%, and the plan parameter's schema text is richer than the description (saved link vs 4-character id, local draft warning). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (the plan's shared checklist) and scopes the output to open and done items with item_id. It is clearly distinct from the broader get_plan, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_plan, check_item, or add_checklist_item. The read-only nature is implied, but no condition or exclusion is stated, leaving routing to inference.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. Beyond those, the description usefully discloses the return contents and that amounts are denominated in the plan's currency, which is real behavioral context. It does not mention pagination or result size, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One tight sentence plus a short currency note, with the resource and returned data front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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's enumeration of returned values is genuinely valuable, and annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only secondary details such as result volume or how settlement suggestions are computed.

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% and the single 'plan' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema (link format, 4-char id, draft-link caveat). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the plan's shared costs') and enumerates exactly what is returned (expenses, balances, settlement payments). It implicitly separates itself from the mutating siblings add_expense and record_payment, but never names an adjacent read tool such as get_plan, so differentiation 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_plan or other read siblings, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'the plan's shared costs'.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context: data is device-local, includes defaults and recent history, and no shared plan is mutated — exactly the kind of scoping detail annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action ('Open local widget preferences') is front-loaded ahead of the scoping caveat. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it says what opens and that nothing shared is affected. It does not describe what the agent should expect to see afterward, but with annotations covering the read-only profile this is a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is missing or contradictory.

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+resource ('Open local widget preferences') and the description clarifies scope ('on this device'), which separates it from the shared-plan siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from read_plugin_settings/update_plugin_settings, and the mismatch between the title ('Device preferences') and the description ('widget preferences') leaves minor ambiguity about what is actually opened.

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 sentence 'does not change a shared plan' gives an implicit when-not boundary, useful against the plan-mutation siblings. However, no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this tool over read_plugin_settings is stated, so the guidance is only 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that preferences are device-local rather than account-scoped, which is genuinely useful context, but it does not describe the read behavior itself or what 'layout' means, and 'the action opens ... preferences' is ambiguous for a read tool.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place only partially, since 'opens device-local preferences' muddies rather than sharpens the read semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is clarity on the core operation: 'settings layout' and the verb 'opens' leave ambiguity about whether this reads configuration data or launches a preferences surface.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's note that there are no account settings adds scope meaning beyond the empty schema, though there is no parameter syntax to clarify.

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+resource ('Read the plugin settings') and scopes it ('no account settings; device-local preferences'), which distinguishes it from the account-level siblings. However, 'settings layout' is vague, and it never names update_plugin_settings or open_preferences, so the boundary with those siblings is left implicit.

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 clarifies that there are no account settings, a negative scope statement, but gives no positive guidance on when to call this instead of update_plugin_settings, open_preferences, or open_planner. An agent gets no usage context or prerequisite information.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds beyond that by disclosing that an update is a no-op and that no settings are settable, which prevents a wasted or harmful call. It stops short of explaining why the tool is exposed at all.

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 constraining fact front-loaded, which is efficient. Two of the sentences restate the same point (nothing is settable / empty update does nothing) and the widget reference sits last, so there is minor redundancy rather than tight single-purpose messaging.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description does cover the no-op nature of the tool. Given a required nested parameter, 0% schema coverage, and a name implying mutation, it still leaves unclear what an agent should do if it does call this tool and whether a non-empty 'set' is ever valid.

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 'set' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It only obliquely explains the parameter via 'an empty update is a no-op', without saying that 'set' must be an empty object or listing any permitted keys, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the schema's additionalProperties: false constraint.

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 defines the tool almost entirely by negation: it says no primitive account settings are available and that an empty update is a no-op, but never states what update_plugin_settings actually does or why it exists. The only positive information is a routing hint ('device preferences are changed in the widget'), which is more about a sibling than this 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?

It implies the tool should effectively never be invoked ('an empty update is a no-op') and points to the widget for device preferences, which is a partial alternative-routing hint. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / do not use this when' statement, and the implied 'don't call me' guidance is left for the agent to infer.

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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: feature flags, monthly provider counters and timeouts live in the backend, implying quota/counter behavior worth knowing. It stops short of describing pagination, error behavior, or what the counters mean for the caller.

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, front-loaded with the capability statement. Every sentence carries some information, though the 'paid API from the browser' line is more about implementation posture than tool selection.

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 a required, undocumented nested payload, four service modes and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the per-service payload contract entirely, which is the single most important thing an agent needs to invoke 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% and the payload is an untyped nested object with no field documentation anywhere. The description's mention of search/details/link previews loosely maps to the service enum, but says nothing about the required 'payload' shape for each service, leaving the caller to guess.

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 names the concrete capabilities (Places search/details and link previews) that map onto the four enum service values, so the agent knows what the tool fetches. However, it never reconciles this with the tool's own name 'widget_lookup' and offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like add_place or find_plan_mentions.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus add_place, vote_place, or any other sibling. The only constraint offered ('Never calls a paid API from the browser') is an implementation note about the backend, not guidance on when an agent should select this tool.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds the useful scoping note that it does not touch schedule data, which reconciles the read-only hint with the verb "bind", but it says nothing about permissions, the open-world behavior it triggers, or persistence.

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, front-loaded sentences with the key qualifier ("App-only") first and the negative constraint last. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter docs, the description leaves major gaps: what plan is, what participant_id is, and what binding produces. The annotations carry safety but there is no return or behavior detail.

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% and both required parameters (plan, participant_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description vaguely refers to "the name" but never explains what plan or participant_id are or how they relate to the selected name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It labels itself an "App-only identity picker" and says it binds the name selected in the shared web UI, which conveys the general intent. However, the operative verb is ambiguous ("bind") and it never states what resource is being set (a session identity? a plan participant?) in a way that clearly separates it from siblings like widget_lookup or join_plan.

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?

"App-only" and "explicitly selected in the shared web UI" imply the context in which this applies, and "Does not change schedule data" rules out one class of expectations. But no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement.

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 destructiveRewrite behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine context beyond these: it reuses the 'web write gateway, validation and budgets' (signalling validation/budget enforcement) and requires a participant token for auth. That is useful, but it stops short of stating what gets destroyed or what the return shape is.

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 no obvious padding, and the app-only/transport nature is front-loaded. However, the sentences are dense with internal jargon that reduces usable signal per sentence.

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 complex 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits operation semantics, payload structure, the ID-vs-token distinctions, and any result/error behavior an agent would need.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, but it only gestures at participant_token and 'saved-plan' (plan). It never explains operation, payload, participant_id, target_participant_id, or target_participant_token, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and 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 name 'widget_write' and title 'Save from the planner' suggest a write/save operation, but the description calls it an 'App-only transport for explicit interactions with shared web components', which is jargon that does not clearly state a verb+resource. It never says what is being written or saved, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from widget_lookup or widget_select_participant.

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 only usage hint is 'Requires the selected participant token for saved-plan edits', which implies a prior widget_select_participant step and a saved-plan context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many siblings.

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