aetumi

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying that the tool surfaces AETumi's capabilities and canonical links, which goes beyond what the annotations alone provide and is consistent with them.

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 entire description is one concise phrase that directly states the tool's subject and content areas. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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-input, read-only informational tool, the description is adequately complete: it tells the agent what kind of content to expect. It could explicitly say it returns a static reference page, but the absence of parameters and the presence of rich annotations reduce the need for more 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any invocation needs; there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about 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 identifies a static informational resource about AETumi and lists what it contains: identity, capabilities, and canonical links. It is distinguishable from the asset-focused sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides.'

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 the appropriate use case: when an agent or user needs an overview of AETumi. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention what kinds of queries should be routed elsewhere.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier, which hints at scope but does not disclose significant behavioral details 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant wording, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 interface, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential information for correct invocation. It lacks explicit mention of the return structure or edge cases, but such detail is not critical for a read-only getter.

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 id' but does not elaborate on the id's meaning, format, or constraints. This adds minimal value over the raw schema, which only lists 'id' as a required string.

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 the full public detail of a single asset by its id. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (AETumi asset), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_assets (searching) and get_pricing (pricing).

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 one has an asset id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_assets. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the routing decision 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds useful product context (lifetime buy-once plans) but no new behavioral disclosure, which is acceptable given 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?

A single, efficient sentence directly states the resource (pricing) and the content (four plans and includes). No filler words, no redundancy, and it is immediately skimmable.

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 read-only tool with no parameters, the description explains what the caller will get (four plans and their inclusions), which compensates for the absent output schema. It does not list specific plans or data formats, but the purpose is fully clear.

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 parameters and an empty input schema, schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't contradict or need parameter details.

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 combination: get pricing for AETumi, specifying the exact content ('four lifetime buy-once plans and what each includes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset, list_categories, and recommend_stack.

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 (obtaining pricing information) but gives no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used instead of other tools or when specific pricing details are needed. The context of the title and function name make it inferable, but there is no direct 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns counts, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose any other behavior like ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive, so it adds only a minimal increment 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the count detail, achieving maximum clarity per character.

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, parameterless, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (categories, industries, counts) and the annotations cover the read-only nature. Minor gaps like return format or ordering are not critical for a tool of this simplicity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty object), the description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not mislead or omit anything necessary for parameter handling.

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 (list) and resource (categories and industries), and adds the detail of counts. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_assets or get_asset, which focus on individual assets, pricing, or recommendations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. It simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and the empty parameter schema.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as how recommendations are derived, constraints, or side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key input ('Given a use-case/industry') and clear output ('AETumi assets and a production approach'). 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?

The description covers the core purpose and return concept but leaves the meaning/role of the optional 'framework' parameter unclear. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the recommendation includes beyond 'architecture, performance'.

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 only 33%; use_case has examples, but industry and framework have no descriptions. The tool description mentions 'use-case/industry' but does not explain the optional framework parameter or how it affects recommendations.

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 action ('recommend'), the input trigger ('Given a use-case/industry'), and the output ('AETumi assets and a production approach'). This distinguishes it from search/list/pricing siblings.

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 when to use the tool ('Given a use-case/industry'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with siblings like search_assets or get_asset.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing pagination support and the 'real catalog' nature, which informs the agent about iteration behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, empty-result handling, or return format—though the annotations lower the bar for safety-related 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds pagination and catalog authenticity. Structure is clean and scannable, though it could have included usage guidance without much cost. Still, it is appropriately 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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return structure, sorting, or result shape. It also omits when to use this tool versus get_asset. While annotations cover safety, the absence of any description of what results look like leaves a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call and how to interpret the response. The pagination note is helpful but insufficient for a complete picture.

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 80%, so most parameters (limit, query, cursor, industry) already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'supports pagination', which aligns with the cursor/limit parameters but does not clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the small coverage gap on category.

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 a precise resource: 'AETumi 3D web assets' with enumerated types (scenes, components, sections, templates). It also adds 'Real catalog' to distinguish from mock data, and clearly indicates this is a search operation distinct from retrieval siblings like get_asset. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 like get_asset, recommend_stack, or list_categories. The description mentions pagination but does not state when to prefer search over other tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. An agent would have to infer from the sibling names that search is for open-ended discovery, which is not made explicit.

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