Step-by-step guidance for reporting a stolen UK bike: police, insurance, listing alerts. Returns a 5-step checklist plus the official Cyclesite report URL. Example: 'my bike was just stolen, what do I do?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| serial | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a checklist and URL, focuses on UK bikes, and is guidance rather than an actual report submission. No contradiction with 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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a useful example. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.
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, read-only tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output, scope, and a realistic invocation scenario. The main weakness is the unexplained optional parameters, but that gap is already reflected in the parameter-semantics score.
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 explain the roles of brand, model, or serial. Those parameters are left as bare strings with no guidance on whether they tailor the checklist or are only optional context. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.
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: providing step-by-step guidance for reporting a stolen UK bike, and it names the concrete output (a 5-step checklist plus the official Cyclesite report URL). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like check_stolen in practice, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 gives a clear invocation scenario via the example query and lists the relevant report areas (police, insurance, listing alerts). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance, but the context is unmistakable for a bike-theft reporting scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
