GoldenFlow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the operation is and what it returns. For a trivial pure arithmetic tool, this is sufficient transparent behavior and leaves no hidden side effects unaddressed.

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 sentence that contains exactly the necessary information. It is front-loaded with the operation and immediately states the output.

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 two-number arithmetic tool, the description is complete. It specifies inputs, operation, output, and the tool has no complex side effects, error cases, or advanced options that require explanation.

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 provides a and b as required numbers but no per-property descriptions. The description says 'two numbers,' which conveys basic semantics, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's parameter names and types. This is adequate but minimal.

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 operation (adding two numbers) and the output (sum). It reads as a pure, unambiguous definition of the tool and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools echo and server_time.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. Usage is implied by the operation itself, but there is no conditional guidance, exclusions, or mention of 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of exposing behavior. It clearly states the tool's only effect: echoing back the provided input. This is fully transparent for a simple stateless operation, though it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or storage; for an echo tool this is minimal and acceptable.

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, clear sentence that directly states functionality. There is no fluff, and it occupies the minimal space needed to convey the tool's purpose.

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 tool has one straightforward parameter, no output schema, and no side effects. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call and interpret the result. Nothing important is missing.

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 100% and the parameter 'text' is already described as 'Text to echo back'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, which is adequate. There is no need for further clarification because the parameter meaning is self-explanatory.

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 ('echoes') and resource ('provided text') with a clear outcome: the text is returned to the caller. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools 'add' and 'server_time' because those imply arithmetic and time retrieval, while this is a direct passthrough operation.

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 like 'add' or 'server_time'. The description is purely functional and does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying not just the value returned but its format (ISO 8601) and timezone (UTC), giving an agent the exact expected semantics.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the essential format details. 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?

For a parameterless, read-only utility tool with no output schema, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what to expect and exactly how to invoke it, with no hidden dependencies or special conditions.

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 disambiguate. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate; no parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current server time') and adds format and timezone details ('ISO 8601, UTC'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like add and echo.

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 makes the usage context obvious: call this tool when the current server time is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's function is so distinct that exclusionary guidance is unnecessary.

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