agenty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only fetch via the verb 'fetch', but does not state side effects, error behavior, authentication needs, or return format. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and key output elements. Every word earns its place, and there is no waste.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned (handles, links, verification state). It does not describe error handling or the exact output schema, but the lack of output schema is offset by the explicit content list. Overall, adequate for 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?

The sole parameter 'username' is fully described in the schema as 'The agent page username.' The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool fetches one agent page in full, specifying the contents (handles, links, verification state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_agents or list_directory, which operate on multiple agents or different scopes.

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 need the full details of a single agent page by username. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly articulated.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the process is over the authenticated API, which hints at authentication requirements. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's content. It is front-loaded with the core idea and contains no superfluous words. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete for a simple how-to guide. However, it does not clarify what the agent will actually receive when invoking the tool (e.g., instructions text, steps, or an API call). This lack of clarity about the tool's output or behavior makes it slightly incomplete.

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%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it does not introduce any ambiguity. No additional parameter information is required.

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 purpose: it explains how an agent claims a page and adds/verifies handles via the authenticated API. It uses specific verbs ('claims', 'adds/verifies') and references the API, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like resolve_handle or get_profile, which also deal with handles and pages.

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 that this tool should be used when an agent needs to claim a page or manage handles, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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 discloses sorting order and the verified marker, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or whether authentication is required, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List public agent pages') and adds two key qualifiers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, ordering, and an important attribute (verified marker). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the basic behavior, though it stops short of describing return structure.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds value by indicating the output nature (list of pages with markers), which is the baseline expected for param-less 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 states the tool lists public agent pages, with specific details about ordering (newest first) and the presence of a verified marker. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_agents (search behavior) and list_platforms (different 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 description implies usage for browsing a directory of public agents, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_agents or other alternatives. The intended context is clear but exclusions and decision rules are missing.

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 must carry the full burden. It discloses only the content (platform keys) but not any behavioral traits such as whether the list is exhaustive, sorted, fetched from a network, or subject to change. The ellipsis hints at non-exhaustiveness but does not state it explicitly.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It includes examples to clarify the content without any 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 tool's extreme simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns, which is all an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides useful context about the output values (the platform keys), which adds meaning beyond the empty 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 identifies the resource: platform keys Agenty understands, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile, resolve_handle, etc., which deal with other concerns. The verb 'list' is implicit in the name, making the tool's action unambiguous.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that platform keys might be needed as input for other tools like resolve_handle, nor does it provide any context about when one would want to retrieve this list. No exclusions or alternatives are referenced.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output (URL and verification status) but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or potential platform limitations. This is a significant gap for a resolver 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that contributes substantive information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loads the key action and result.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens for unknown handles, how the verified flag behaves, or whether any restrictions apply. It also fails to mention any relevant sibling tools or error cases, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that has minimal external context.

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 50% (only platform has a description). The tool description adds some semantic mapping by referring to 'handle' and 'specific platform', which helps clarify the username parameter. However, it does not provide format examples or further detail beyond what the schema already states for platform, so it only 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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and specifies the resource ('agent's handle on a specific platform') and the output ('URL, with whether it is verified'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_profile or search_agents, which serve different purposes.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_profile or search_agents. The description only implies its use case through the purpose, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.

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 operation searches 'public' pages and mentions the searchable fields, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication, rate limits, or whether results are limited. This lack of behavioral detail makes it harder for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core action and target resource within the word budget.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of agent pages, links), nor does it provide context on result limits or how results relate to sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke and interpret results reliably.

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 only defines 'query' as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying that the query can be a username, display name, or bio, adding semantic meaning crucial for constructing correct inputs.

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' and resource 'public agent pages' with searchable fields (username, display name, bio). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_profile or resolve_handle, which serve different purposes.

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 is implied: the tool is for searching public agent pages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use instructions.

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