claw.cleaning

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: weekends-only availability, specific time window, geographic limitation, and the behavior when omitting `date` (returns next 8 weekend days). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by constraints, and ending with parameter usage. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, operational constraints, and parameter behavior well. It does not describe the structural details of the returned slots, but the core usage is fully addressed, making it complete enough for straightforward selection and 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?

The schema already covers the `date` parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds the critical behavior that omitting the parameter returns the next 8 upcoming weekend days, which is not in the schema. This extra semantic guidance elevates the parameter understanding above the baseline.

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 opens with 'List available cleaning slots,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_booking_status, initiate_booking) by focusing on availability, and the additional details (weekends, time, location) further sharpen its purpose.

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 operational constraints: 'Saturdays and Sundays only, 8 AM – 6 PM PT, San Francisco only.' It also gives a concrete usage instruction: 'Omit `date` for the next 8 upcoming weekend days.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context strongly implies its role among siblings.

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 burden. It discloses that it queries Google Calendar directly, results are live, and it reflects the next ~20 events, which sets expectations for freshness and scope. It stops short of describing auth requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool these disclosures are meaningful.

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 concise sentences with the primary action and key behavioral caveat. No redundant filler.

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 list tool, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose, data source, and result window. It doesn't describe the return payload shape, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of 'list upcoming bookings', this 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter 'email' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond confirming filtering 'by email'. No additional semantics about format or validation are needed given the schema is complete.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with resource 'upcoming bookings' and clarifies scope 'for a customer by email'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools check_availability and initiate_booking, which focus on availability checking and booking creation.

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 clear context: use this tool to list a customer's upcoming bookings, with live results from Google Calendar. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and the stated purpose make usage context clear.

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, and it excels: it discloses no upfront payment, the locked slot, calendar invite sending, and the expected return value. It also instructs the agent on required customer interactions, going beyond a simple operation summary.

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 yet information-dense, with the core action front-loaded and supporting details neatly organized. Every sentence adds value—payment policy, return value, side effects, and required pre-checks—without 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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools for related actions, this description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, what side effects occur, and what the agent must do before invoking. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 each parameter having a description, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting or constraints, so 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?

The description opens with 'Reserve a cleaning slot,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_availability, check_booking_status) by focusing on the booking action and its side effects.

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 the tool: after gathering full details and confirming the booking preview. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Always ask...' instruction implies a precondition rather than a contrast with sibling tools.

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