Second Eyes Agent Workflow Services

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Start session + work stamp', implying a state change without detailing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what the work stamp represents. It provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely short and avoids fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of obscurity. 'Start session + work stamp' is concise but not clear enough to be effective.

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?

This tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain what a work stamp is, what starting a session entails, or the role of agent_id. The information is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema defines one parameter, agent_id, with only type string and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what agent_id is, its format, or how it relates to starting a session. There is no compensatory information.

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 says 'Start session + work stamp', which uses a specific verb 'start' and names a resource 'session', but 'work stamp' is ambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like pause_and_route or leave_with_receipt, which also relate to session lifecycle.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which one would call enter_lounge instead of a sibling.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, access requirements, or any other behavioral traits. This is a complete absence of transparency.

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 extremely short and under-specified. This is not concise writing; it is a fragment that omits essential information. It lacks a verb and fails to convey the tool's function, making it more of a label than a description.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description must at minimum clarify what the tool does and what it returns. 'Lounge + legacy tool packs' provides no such context and is entirely inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the tool 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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The score is independent of the poor purpose clarity.

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 'Lounge + legacy tool packs' is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource statement. It does not specify what action fetch_catalog performs (e.g., fetch, list, retrieve), and the meaning is ambiguous even in context. It fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like read_menu or read_laws.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too vague to imply any use case, and there is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools.

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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is a safe read or a mutating action. The '401' hint is too vague to inform the agent of any behavioral traits.

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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, it lacks the necessary content to be useful, so the brevity is not a virtue here.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It omits what the tool does, when to use it, what the inputs mean, and what to expect from invoking it.

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 description does not add meaning to either 'session_id' or 'error_detail'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without any elaboration (e.g., expected format, purpose beyond the name), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Shortcut PAT/401 → mcp-wiring' is cryptic and fails to state a clear verb+resource. It does not explain what the tool does or how it relates to fixing GitHub MCP 401 errors, leaving the purpose essentially missing.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is also no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only implies exiting and receiving a receipt. It does not describe side effects, session termination behavior, or what the receipt contains, leaving significant uncertainty.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the detail needed to be useful and does not earn its place with substantive 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'receipt', the expected input, or post-condition, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 'session_id' has zero schema description coverage and the description does not mention or explain it. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema field name.

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 'Exit with receipt' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, offering no additional specificity about the resource or action. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'enter_lounge' or 'order_service', leaving the actual purpose ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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 does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any operational details. For a tool that likely performs mutations (ordering), this is a serious omission. The description is a fragment, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely brief, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits necessary information. It is a single dependent phrase without a main clause. While it is short, it under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it more of an unhelpful label than a structured description.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide significant context. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the response contains. The phrase 'Survival services by slug' is not enough for an agent to reliably select or invoke this tool.

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 has two required string parameters, slug and session_id, but neither is described in the schema (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'by slug', implying slug is an identifier, but provides no context for what a slug represents or why session_id is needed. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the 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 'Survival services by slug' provides a resource (survival services) and an access method (by slug), but no verb or action. It is unclear whether this tool retrieves, creates, or updates orders. The name 'order_service' suggests a broad ordering capability, but the description fails to specify the operation, making it vague and indistinguishable from possible sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_menu or read_pricing. There is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferable. The description leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and sparse phrase.

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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the return content ('recent purchases + proof links') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Since the description adds no safety or behavioral context, it earns a low score.

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 extremely short—two fragments—and front-loads the core purpose. It is not verbose, but the grammatical structure is awkward; the question mark and plus sign create a cryptic but compact summary. It earns a solid score for conciseness but loses one point for structural clarity.

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?

As a simple zero-parameter query tool, the description provides the essential point: it returns recent purchases and proof links from other agents. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'proof links,' the time window for 'recent,' and any relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema or annotations, this falls short of full completeness.

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 confirms that the input object is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics; none exist. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is already complete.

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 question and a noun phrase to convey that the tool reports recent purchases made by other agents and includes proof links. This clearly identifies the resource (patron purchase activity) and the action (querying recent purchases), distinguishing it from siblings like proof_bar or order_service, though it lacks a standard imperative verb.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proof_bar or leave_with_receipt. The description implies a use case (checking if other agents have bought here) but does not state exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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 should disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. There is no mention of side effects, destructive actions, external calls, or required permissions beyond the cryptic 'POST'.

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 extremely short (five words), which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity to the point of being under-specified. It reads more like a diagram than a usable description.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about expected inputs, return values, or behavior, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 three parameters (task, state, session_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, so agents receive no additional semantic information.

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 'POST stuck state → routed service' is cryptic and does not clearly state the tool's function. It hints at an HTTP POST and routing but leaves the resource and action ambiguous, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like order_service or leave_with_receipt.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'verify' without explaining what happens on success/failure, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a verification 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 extremely concise at four words, with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action 'Verify' and the resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly. Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (0 params) and absence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'verify' returns or what the agent can expect. It doesn't, so the agent may not know whether the tool returns a boolean, status message, or something else. The description is incomplete for invocation.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is trivially covered at 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'Verify' with a resource 'lounge live' and context 'before paying', clearly indicating a pre-payment check. It distinguishes itself from siblings like enter_lounge and order_service by focusing on verification rather than entry or ordering. However, the phrase 'lounge live' is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 phrase 'before paying' implies the tool should be used as a precondition for payment, providing clear usage context. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, and it doesn't state when not to use this tool relative to siblings like read_menu or patron_activity.

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 present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Deterministic' provides a hint about consistency but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires special permissions, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other metadata.

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 only three words, which is extremely concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks a verb and enough context to be useful. This is not true conciseness but rather an underspecified stub that forces the agent to infer 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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description must supply all context. It does not state what 'laws' are, whether they refer to lounge rules, legal regulations, or data structures, nor does it describe the return value or any behavior. The tool appears related to a 'lounge' domain (siblings like proof_bar, read_menu), but the description fails to complete even the basic 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain any parameters, and there is nothing to compensate for. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 'Deterministic lounge laws' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly say the tool reads or returns laws, relying on the name 'read_laws' for the action. While it narrows the domain to 'lounge laws,' it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_menu or read_pricing beyond the subject matter.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases. The description offers no context for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals a pricing range but does not state what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, or if it has side effects. The behavior is largely opaque.

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 phrase with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key qualifier 'Survival menu.' However, the brevity sacrifices clarity, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description is too sparse. The term 'Survival menu' is ambiguous, and there is no explanation of the menu's purpose or what a caller should expect. A simple read tool still needs a clearer statement of its function.

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 adds contextual meaning about the menu's price range, which, while not parameter-specific, is useful. There is no schema to compensate for, and no parameters need explanation.

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 'Survival menu — launch recovery pricing $0.01–$0.05' gives some content clues but does not explicitly state that this tool reads/retrieves a menu. The verb is missing; the resource is implied by the tool name. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is vague and not clearly differentiated from siblings like read_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like read_pricing and fetch_catalog exist, but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria, leaving the agent without usage context.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Session + service pricing' but does not mention return format, read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for the agent to understand 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 extremely brief (four words) but under-specified. It is a fragment without a main verb, lacking necessary information about the action and behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the agent cannot fully comprehend the tool's purpose, return value, or usage context. The description provides only the domain (pricing) but not enough detail to be 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by clarifying that the tool deals with session and service pricing, which is helpful given 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 'Session + service pricing' identifies the resource domain (pricing for sessions and services) but lacks a verb or explicit statement of the tool's action. The name implies 'read', yet the description itself is a noun phrase, making it less clear than siblings like 'read_menu' or 'read_laws'.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with other read tools such as read_menu or read_laws.

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