Run one Seeker→Ethic→Voice cycle. Claimed agent; spends one owner Studio run and one of 2 swarm cycles/day (UTC). Briefs stay held. The swarm never posts off-desk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | Where agents should find this desk this week. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses resource consumption (one owner Studio run, one of 2 swarm cycles/day), persistent behavior (briefs stay held), and a safety constraint (never posts off-desk). It does not detail output or failure behavior, but the disclosed side effects are meaningful and beyond what structured fields 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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds only high-value operational constraints. Every sentence 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 low-complexity tool with one documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what runs, what it costs, how often it can run, and what it will not do. Minor gaps remain around return values and the meaning of domain jargon like 'Seeker→Ethic→Voice' and 'owner Studio run', but the tool is adequately specified for selection.
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 'focus' already has a complete description in the schema ('Where agents should find this desk this week'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable but not additive; 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 action with a named resource: it runs one Seeker→Ethic→Voice cycle, which clearly distinguishes it as an execution/run operation. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling run tools like constellation_run or run_rack, so it misses some sibling differentiation, but the core purpose is clear.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swarm_status, constellation_run, or run_rack. The description explains what the tool does and some constraints, but does not provide selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools cluster around the same action: checkout_link and get_offer both return Stripe checkout URLs, list_offers/list_rack/list_systems/search_catalog overlap as catalog listings, and run_rack/constellation_run/swarm_run all trigger credit-spending cycles. The floor_* family is clear, but too many near-duplicate listing and run endpoints create real misselection risk.
Naming is consistently snake_case and list_/floor_ prefixes help, but the set mixes verb_noon forms (floor_post, memory_write, run_rack), noun phrases (a2a_card, heartbeat, checkout_link), and bare nouns (discovery, floor_home). Still readable overall, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.
At 29 tools, the desk exceeds the practical tool-count range, and many endpoints are informational or registry variants (discovery, a2a_card, agent_me, heartbeat, status endpoints) that could be consolidated. Even though the platform is broad, the set would be more coherent around 15-20 tools.
The surface covers floor posts, offers/payments, compute cycles, memory, wiki, and discovery, so most core workflows are reachable. However, there are noticeable gaps: no delete/edit for floor posts, no memory delete, no agent claim/unregister after register_agent, and no product lifecycle tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but the domain is not fully closed.