4bots-content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the link expires in 7 days, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., does creating a link trigger anything?), whether it's idempotent, or whether any permissions are needed. A 3 is appropriate given the lack of annotations and moderate behavioral context provided.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) states what the tool does, (2) provides when-not-to and alternative, (3) notes a key constraint (expiration). No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and a key constraint (expiration). For a low-complexity tool, this is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns a link (implied by 'Create a browser link'), but that is reasonably inferred. A 4 reflects slight room for improvement in confirming output format.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explicitly detail the parameters, but the context of creating a setup link for human selection implies what agent_email and human_email are. The description adds limited value for parameters, but the tool is simple enough that the schema parameter titles ('Agent Email', 'Human Email') combined with the description are largely sufficient. Given the low coverage, baseline is low, but the description's implied context earns a 4.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a browser link for your human to pick channels themselves'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'start_subscription' as an alternative for a different use case (fast start without human input). Purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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 tells when to use this tool (when you want human input to pick channels) and when not to (for a fast start without human input, use start_subscription instead). This is exemplary usage guidance with an alternative named.

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 fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns both styled HTML and plain text, and importantly flags the low_balance field and the action to take if it is true. This adds valuable context beyond what the schema or annotations would provide, though it does not mention error handling or side effects.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value (usage frequency, return format, and a behavioral note). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, usage frequency, return types, and a key behavioral trait (low_balance). It lacks parameter description, but the session_token is somewhat self-explanatory. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple tool, though a note on error conditions would round it out.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention the required session_token parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose or format. This is a significant gap for a single required parameter.

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 gets 'today's content for all subscribed channels', combining a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_summary, get_template, and list_channels by focusing on the daily bundle of content for all subscribed channels.

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 says 'Call this once per day', providing a clear usage frequency guideline. While it does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use it, the daily frequency is a strong contextual hint that helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool over 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool returns (credits, channels, delivery counts, manage URL), which gives some transparency about the response, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. A score of 3 is appropriate as it provides minimal behavioral 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 concise with a single line that front-loads the key output attributes. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be structured slightly better with punctuation for readability.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It lists outputs but does not explain the purpose of the session_token input, any prerequisites, or how to interpret the 'manage URL'. The tool has only one parameter, but the low schema coverage and missing context make it incomplete.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, 'session_token'. The description does not explain the semantics of this parameter beyond its name, leaving the agent with no additional information about what token is required or how to obtain it.

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 a specific verb ('get') with a resource ('session'), and lists key attributes (credits, channels, delivery counts, manage URL) that distinguish it from siblings like get_bundle or get_summary. The purpose is clear and not a tautology.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for using the session_token parameter.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It indicates this is a read operation aggregating three types of content, which is transparent for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or that no parameters are needed.

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, clear sentence that uses exactly 8 words to convey the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information is present, and it is front-loaded with the key benefit.

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 tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval operation. It explains what data is returned. Minor gap: it does not confirm the return format or that no parameters are needed.

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 has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully captures the fact that no parameters are required. The description adds value by clarifying what data is returned (content catalog, privacy policy, pricing), which goes 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?

The description clearly states that a single call retrieves the content catalog, privacy policy, and pricing. The verb is implied (get/retrieve) and the resource is well-defined as multiple specific pieces of information.

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 use when you need these three specific data items together, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_template' or 'get_bundle'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (template with placeholder and copy) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication requirements. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 front-load the purpose and provide a useful integration hint. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the template description from the usage guide, and it omits parameter information which would add valuable structure.

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 tool has one optional parameter with no schema description and no output schema, the description should compensate by covering parameter usage and return format. It provides a clear output description but entirely ignores the 'channels' parameter. The reference to get_bundle is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 one parameter ('channels') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. The agent has no guidance on how to use the 'channels' parameter or its meaning. This is a critical omission that severely hinders correct invocation.

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 that the tool returns a free HTML email template with a {4bots} placeholder and suggested copy. The verb 'get' is implied from the tool name, and the description distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_bundle by referencing it directly. However, it could be more explicit about retrieving the template as a function.

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 implied usage context ('introduce the service to your human') and hints at integration with get_bundle ('Drop get_bundle's html field where {4bots} appears'). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_summary or list_channels, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is present but indirect.

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 disclosure. It correctly identifies that this is a read-only listing (no destructive behavior implied), and it reveals that it returns both active and proposed channels. It does not discuss pagination or performance, but for a 0-parameter tool returning a fixed set, this suffices.

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, two-sentence paragraph with zero filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the count (10), content (descriptions, pricing), and extra feature (proposed channels). No verbosity.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple listing tool. It states what data is returned and that proposed channels are included. No mention of output format or sorting, but the tool's simplicity and 8 sibling tools keep the burden low.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description has no parameters to document. It nonetheless adds meaning by describing what the tool returns (names, descriptions, pricing, and proposed channels), which adds context 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource ('list channels') and adds the unique scope: 'All 10 channels with descriptions and pricing' and 'Also shows proposed channels you can vote on.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vote' and 'start_subscription'.

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 is for browsing available channels and proposed channels, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_summary or get_template instead). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 carries the full burden. It transparently states that activation is instant, requires no browser/human action, returns a session_token, and mentions 100 free tokens. However, it does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., invalid email), if the subscription expires, or any rate limits. Still, the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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: three short sentences followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place—no filler. The most important behavioral highlights are 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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a commendable job covering the input semantics and key effects (instant activation, session_token, free tokens). It could be slightly more complete by describing the return value structure beyond 'session_token' and error conditions, but for a tool of this complexity it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful context for each parameter inline in the Args section: human_email is 'The human's email address', channels is 'List of channel slugs (e.g. ["human-badassery", "brain-butter"])', agent_email is 'Your agent's email address', and source is 'Optional. How you found us (e.g. "mcpregistry", "relay", "search")'. This adds meaning beyond the schema properties which only have titles. The only gap is that it doesn't explain the format/validation of email addresses.

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 starts with 'Activate instantly. No browser, no human action needed.' which clearly states the verb (activate/start) and the resource (subscription) with a unique selling point of instant activation. It is well distinguished from siblings like create_setup_link (which likely needs browser action) and get_bundle (which retrieves data).

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: use this to start a subscription, and then use get_bundle daily with the returned session_token. It also directs to list_channels for available slugs. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or list alternatives for other use cases, resulting in a slight deduction.

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 must carry the full burden for behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool is a preview (no mutation), requires no signup, and has an optional source parameter. It does not mention rate limits, data retention, or what 'today's content' includes exactly, but for a lightweight trial tool 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?

The description is very concise, with clear front-loading of the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, the entry-point instruction, and parameter documentation. There is zero wasted text.

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 low complexity (0 required params, no output schema, simple return type), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage flow, and parameters. Minor gaps: does not specify what 'today's content' entails or how many channels are previewed (implied to be 3). Still, it is highly functional for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the 'source' parameter's semantics: it is optional and indicates how the user found the service. It provides examples like 'mcpregistry', 'relay', 'search'. This adds value beyond the schema's default and type fields.

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: preview today's content from 3 channels. It specifies that it requires no arguments and no signup, making the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_subscription by setting a clear entry-point role.

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 to call this first to see what the human would receive, then if liked, call start_subscription. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-switch guidance, directly contrasting with a sibling tool. The 'no signup, no arguments required' further clarifies the minimal commitment needed.

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 burden. It does not disclose that this is a write/mutation operation, whether it requires authentication, what the side effects are (e.g., irreversible vote), or if it is idempotent. The description is too brief to inform an agent about behavioral traits.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is excessively terse, omitting important details that would make it valuable. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, earning a middle score.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description should at least explain the session token's purpose and how to obtain it, and what the tool returns. The reference to list_channels is good, but the overall description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. 'session_token' is ambiguous (origin, format) and 'channel' is not explained (e.g., slug vs ID). The description does not help an agent understand or correctly fill these 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 clearly states the action ('Vote for a proposed channel') and the purpose ('Votes determine build order'). It also references a sibling tool (list_channels) to find the required channel slug, helping distinguish the tool's input. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other voting or action 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 provides a prerequisite ('Use list_channels to see proposed channel slugs'), which is helpful. However, it does not advise when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any constraints (e.g., one vote per session, reversibility). The guidance is minimal but sufficient for a simple voting action.

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