directree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions 'using directree's structured facts,' which is vague and does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. Since 'compare' implies read-only but is not stated, transparency is limited.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the action and scope without unnecessary words. No redundant details or 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks information about return values, error behavior, or any prerequisites. More context on what 'structured facts' looks like would improve 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 fully describes the single 'slugs' parameter with min/max constraints and a descriptive comment. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: comparing 2-4 tools side by side. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool (single tool retrieval) and search_tools (searching). The verb 'Compare' and resource 'tools' are specific.

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 that this tool is for comparing a specific set of tools (between 2 and 4). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or list exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent would use it when needing a side-by-side comparison.

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 must disclose behavioral traits itself. It merely says 'Get full structured facts' without explaining the return structure, potential errors, authentication needs, or side effects. The vague term 'full structured facts' offers minimal 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence (11 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler, making it appropriately sized for this simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description is incomplete because it leaves key context undefined: what exactly constitutes 'full structured facts' and what 'directree' means. With no output schema or annotations, the agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape or behavior, increasing the risk of incorrect 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 input schema already covers the 'slug' parameter with an example ('notion', 'linear'. The description adds only the phrase 'directree slug', which marginally clarifies that the slug is a directory-specific identifier, but does not go beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 action (get) and resource (full structured facts for one tool), and specifies the lookup method (by slug). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single tool, unlike compare_tools (compare), search_tools (search), and list_categories (list categories).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tools or compare_tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the conditions for selection implicit.

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 must carry the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool lists categories and includes tool counts, which is helpful, but it omits details such as whether the list is sorted, whether it includes hidden or archived categories, or any permission requirements. For a simple read-only listing, this is acceptable, but not exhaustive.

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, 12 words, that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It avoids unnecessary words and is immediately understandable.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: the resource (software categories), the scope (directree directory), and the output detail (tool counts). It could have specified the exact response format, but for a list operation this is not a major 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description correctly does not need to expand on parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all software categories in the directree directory') and adds a distinct detail ('with tool counts'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_tools, get_tool, and search_tools, which have different actions.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives. The use case is implied by the listing nature, but there is no direct guidance or exclusions.

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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states seed fields and says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens with empty queries. It doesn't mention that it supports filters like category or has_free_plan, which are in the schema. Therefore, it lacks transparency beyond purpose.

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, front-loaded, and provides the essential purpose without any redundant words. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 no annotations or output schema, so the description is the only source for expected behavior and return values. It does not mention output format or any restrictions, relying entirely on the schema for parameter context. For a search tool with four optional parameters, this leaves gaps in 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?

All four parameters already have full descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description offers no additional parameter semantics; it merely repeats the query field's scope. It doesn't, for example, explain how `limit` interacts with search results.

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 identifies the operation ('Search'), the resource ('directree software catalog'), and the search scope ('by name, tagline, or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool (single retrieval) and compare_tools (comparison).

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 the tool should be used when a user wants to find tools via text search on specific fields. It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as preferring get_tool for direct lookups. Thus, guidance is only implied.

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