claw.cleaning

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: time constraints (Saturdays/Sundays 8 AM–6 PM PT), geographic limitation (San Francisco only), default behavior when 'date' is omitted (next 8 upcoming weekend days), and the read-only nature implied by 'List'. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial operational 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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, followed by specific constraints and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with essential operational information, and there's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about constraints, defaults, and operational scope. It doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful given no output schema, but covers most other aspects well for this complexity level.

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 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter, but the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema. It explains the default behavior when 'date' is omitted (next 8 upcoming weekend days) and reinforces that dates must be Saturday or Sunday, which complements the schema's description. This additional guidance enhances parameter 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 specific action ('List available cleaning slots') and resource ('cleaning slots'), with precise scope constraints (weekends only, specific hours, San Francisco only). It distinguishes from potential siblings like 'check_booking_status' (status checking) or 'initiate_booking' (booking creation) by focusing solely on availability listing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('List available cleaning slots') and includes implicit exclusions (only weekends, specific hours/location). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: queries are live and limited to ~20 events. This covers the live nature and a constraint. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe other side effects, but for a simple query this is sufficient.

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 wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does, the live nature, and a limit. However, without output schema, the return format is unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (email is the customer email). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 lists upcoming bookings by email, specifying the resource (bookings) and action. It mentions live Google Calendar queries, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_availability or initiate_booking beyond the name.

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 context for use (listing upcoming bookings), but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (check_availability, initiate_booking) or any exclusions. The use case is implied rather than 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?

Discloses key behaviors: no upfront payment, payment at appointment, returns specific object, slot locked in calendar, calendar invite sent. With no annotations, this carries the full burden. Missing constraints like only Saturday/Sunday, but schema covers that. Reasonably transparent.

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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by side effects, then usage instructions. Excellent economy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers purpose, side effects, and usage instructions adequately. Lacks error handling or failure mode info, but overall sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value beyond schema. Mentions that no payment is collected and that email receives invite, reinforcing existing schema descriptions. 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?

Describes a specific action: 'Reserve a cleaning slot.' Distinguishes from siblings by indicating this finalizes the booking, while siblings check availability and status. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: 'Always ask the customer for full details ... and confirm the booking preview before calling this tool.' Provides clear instructions for when to invoke. Lacks mention of checking availability first, but implied by sibling tool existence.

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