centric-demo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returning a brief and a Watch state cadence but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Limited behavioral detail.

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 that convey the core purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Efficient overall.

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 description covers the output contents but lacks details on return format, errors, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'Contact id or name'. The description adds context that it's for a demo contact but does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. 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 for a demo contact, specifying contents like personality read, opening suggestions, things to avoid, and a cadence heads-up for Watch state. This distinguishes it from siblings 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for pre-demo interaction but doesn't mention when not to use or provide comparisons to 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 carries full burden. It transparently states the tool shows a prompt, presents options, returns a canned acknowledgment, and does not save anything. This clearly indicates a non-destructive, read-like behavior for demonstration purposes.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 that this is a demo tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the interaction flow and side effects. It could optionally mention what the 'canned acknowledgment' looks like, but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides general context ('shows the prompt and the Positive / Neutral / Concern options') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already cover the 'read' parameter's enum and the 'contact' parameter's example.

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: 'Walk through the temperature check interaction for a demo contact.' It specifies the actions (shows prompt, options, returns canned acknowledgment) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like brief_me or get_contact_profile by focusing on a demo interaction that does not save anything.

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 this tool is for demo purposes ('Demonstrates the loop without saving anything'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool is demo-only and that nothing is sent or logged, indicating it is safe and non-destructive. It also mentions that the draft is 'grounded in the contact's brief context,' though it does not elaborate on data handling or permissions, which is acceptable given the demo 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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action and format options, and the second provides critical context (demo-only, no logging). No unnecessary words are present, and every sentence contributes 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and constraints. It explains the tool's demo nature and that outputs are not persisted. It does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., that it returns a draft string), but this is reasonably inferred. The context is sufficient for effective use.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (contact, format) with full coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, such as the list of format options or the nature of the contact identifier. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not significantly augment understanding.

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 resource ('demo contact'), and the specific format options (email, text, linkedin, talking_points). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it is 'Demo only' and that nothing is sent or logged, which differentiates it from any real communication 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?

The description explicitly states 'Demo only; nothing is sent or logged,' providing clear guidance that this tool is for demonstration purposes only and should not be used for actual outreach. However, it does not mention specific scenarios when to avoid using it relative to sibling tools or provide explicit 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?

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the output includes status colors (Red/Yellow/Green) and explicitly states what is missing (no numeric score). It does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., error handling), but the core behavioral traits are clear.

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?

Three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second lists output components, third clarifies a key point (no numeric score). No superfluous information, front-loaded with the verb+resource. Very concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the output structure well. It could mention behavior if contact not found, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 already provides a good description for the single parameter 'contact' with an example. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but as schema coverage is 100%, a 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?

Description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (full RM-facing profile for one demo contact), lists the specific output components (Relational IP dimensions, Brief Me summary, cadence note, current context), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'brief_me' and 'get_radar' by specifying the unique content.

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 mentions that there is no numeric score ('RMs see status, not the number'), which provides some usage guidance, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools. No direct alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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 burden. It discloses the return structure (five axes with Red/Yellow/Green status and normalized position) and explicitly states it intentionally returns no numeric score. However, it does not mention read-only nature or potential side effects, though the name suggests a safe getter.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key behavioral note. Every part adds value with no wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and its intended use for widget rendering. It could optionally list the five axes names, but this is not critical for 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 input schema already provides a clear description for the 'contact' parameter with an example. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's explanation, and coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a radar shape for a demo contact with five axes each having a status and position, and explicitly differentiates by noting it returns no numeric score. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_contact_profile or list_demo_contacts.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (brief_me, demo_temperature_check, etc.). It implies use for a demo contact but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative 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?

No annotations provided; description fully discloses it returns a list of contact details with no side effects. Behavior is clear and accurate.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence plus 'Start here'—every word earns its place. Highly concise.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and returns. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying the output fields beyond 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?

Description clearly states it lists demo contacts for a specific RM, with explicit output fields. Distinguishes itself from siblings by being an entry-point list tool.

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?

States 'Start here,' indicating it's the first tool to use for demo contacts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context implies its role.

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