writeflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states what information is returned (prize, entry window, count, ranking/winner selection), which provides good transparency for a read operation. No side effects are implied, and the behavior is straightforward, though it could mention authentication needs if applicable.

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, and well-structured sentence. It front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently lists the key outputs without superfluous 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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately lists the returned fields. It does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON), but the listed details are sufficient for understanding what the tool provides. The sibling tool context is not addressed.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('WriteFlow weekly writing contest'), listing particular attributes (prize, window, count, ranking). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_daily_prompt', which serves a different purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_daily_prompt' or in what context. It implicitly suggests it's for contest info, but does not explicitly state use cases or 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it retrieves a prompt with day number and word counts, but doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or behavior if no prompt exists. Adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words or filler. Efficient and scannable.

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 doesn't specify the return format. It mentions day number and response options but not how they are structured. Sufficient for basic understanding but could be more 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?

No parameters (0), schema coverage 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds context about the prompt content, which is useful 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?

Clearly states 'Get today's WriteFlow writing prompt' with specific details about the prompt content (creative-writing, day number, word count options). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_contest_info' by being about daily prompt vs contest info.

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?

Implied usage for retrieving daily prompt, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling or alternatives. Lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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