centric-demo

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 the tool returns a brief and lists its contents, implying a read-only operation without needing to state explicit side effects. It could have disclosed more about error behaviors or prerequisites, but the description is transparent about the primary output.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence being a bit promotional ('hero tool') but not wastefully long. The second sentence packs substantive detail about the output. It is concise and front-loaded, but the first sentence could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete, explaining what it returns and the Watch state special case. It does not cover potential errors or semantics of 'Watch state', but this is not critical for basic usage.

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%; the parameter 'contact' is already described with an example. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns a synthesized pre-interaction brief with specific content (personality read, opening lines, avoids) and a cadence heads-up for Watch state. This is a specific verb+resource (returns a brief) and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contact_profile or demo_temperature_check by focusing on the synthesized pre-interaction output.

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 'pre-interaction brief' clearly implies the tool is used before interacting with a demo contact, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: it shows a prompt and canned options, returns a fixed acknowledgment, and performs no persistence. This covers side effects and expected interaction, though it could mention what happens if 'read' is omitted.

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 two sentences, densely packed with purpose, behavior, and constraints, with no fluff or repetition. Everything 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 demo tool with low complexity, the description covers the essential loop, the absent persistence, and the canned output. It lacks an explicit statement about omitting the 'read' parameter, but the schema covers that, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the 'canned acknowledgment' statement.

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% for both parameters, so the description adds minimal value. It does contextualize the interaction (prompt/options) but does not enrich the parameter meanings themselves beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Walk through the temperature check interaction') and the resource ('demo contact'), making its purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing the demo-only nature and that nothing is saved.

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 when to use it: for demonstrating the temperature check loop, not for real interactions, by explicitly stating 'without saving anything' and 'canned acknowledgment.' It does not mention alternatives, but the demo context is clear enough for an agent to discriminate from other 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 carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that nothing is sent or logged, and that the draft is grounded in the contact's brief context. This is valuable transparency about side effects and grounding, though it omits details like return format or error 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 waste. The first sentence states the purpose and formats; the second adds essential behavioral context. Compact and 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?

For a simple demo tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and demo-only nature. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns, but the purpose of drafting strongly implies it. Complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the format choices already present in the schema enum, but adds no extra meaning beyond that. It doesn't elaborate on the contact parameter or clarify the default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Draft outreach'), the target (a demo contact), and the formats (email, text, linkedin, talking_points). It uniquely identifies the tool as the drafting capability among siblings like brief_me and get_contact_profile.

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?

Provides clear context: it's a demo tool that sends nothing and logs nothing, implying it should be used for demonstration purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or say when not to use it beyond the demo-only constraint.

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. It discloses the output format in detail (five dimensions as Red/Yellow/Green, Brief Me, cadence, current context) and explicitly states the absence of a numeric score. It doesn't mention error cases or authentication, but for a simple read operation with a single parameter, it provides substantial behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical clarifying constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

The tool has low complexity, no output schema, and the description explains the return contents comprehensively. It could add more detail about the meaning of 'current context' or possible errors, but for an agent with sibling context and a well-documented schema, this is sufficient.

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%, so the parameter is fully documented ('Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen''). The description reinforces that it's for 'one demo contact' but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. 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 verb and resource: 'Get the full RM-facing profile for one demo contact.' It lists concrete components (Relational IP dimensions, Brief Me summary, cadence note, current context) and explicitly distinguishes from numeric-score tools with 'No numeric score.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_demo_contacts and get_radar.

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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving a full profile of a single contact, implying one would use it after identifying a specific demo contact. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear and the 'No numeric score' note helps set expectations. It lacks a when-not-to-use statement, so not a full 5.

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 transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns a radar shape with statuses and positions, and intentionally omits a numeric score. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the primary action and key output characteristics. Every element earns its place, and the structure is clear and 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and core intent. It lacks elaboration on domain terms like 'Relational IP', but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 full description for the single 'contact' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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 clearly defines the tool as retrieving a radar shape for a demo contact, with specific structural details (five axes, statuses, positions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_contact_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a demo contact' implies a scope, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision rules.

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 fully describes the return payload (name, title, company, R/Y/G health, days since last touch) and clarifies the data is fictional. As a list operation, it implies read-only behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state safety or side-effect absence, which is minimal for this type.

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 only, with the action verb leading, return fields listed, and a clear call-to-action 'Start here.' No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose, data scope, return fields, and usage context. It is complete on its own, and the lack of an output schema is offset by listing the return fields explicitly.

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 description appropriately does not discuss any. With no parameters to clarify, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional semantic 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?

Clearly states the tool lists the demo book of business for demo RM Marcus Johnson, specifying the fictional contacts context. The verb 'List' and resource 'demo book of business' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contact_profile or get_radar.

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 includes 'Start here,' which implicitly positions this as the initial tool to use for the demo book, providing context on when to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the forward-looking hint is useful.

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