Manekami

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses that the tool is read-only ('Read-only; no outcome is promised') and describes the return value ('Returns a fixed-canon oracle poem... plus its reading'). This tells the agent what to expect and that it is a non-destructive action. However, it does not detail authorization or side effects, but given its simplicity, 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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action, describing the return, and noting the read-only nature. No wasted words 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?

For a simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is safe. It does not need to detail the output format since no schema is provided, but the return description is adequate. Minor omission: not clarifying what 'fixed-canon' or 'creative habit' means, but these are likely domain-specific and not critical for 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear (locale language, exclude omen number). Therefore, the description offers no extra semantic value for the 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 ('Draw an omen') and resource ('omen') at a specific location ('Manekami shrine') and on whose behalf ('on the user's behalf'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., leave_pilgrim_note, light_lamp) by focusing on drawing an omen, not leaving notes or lighting lamps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks comparative context such as 'use this for oracle poems; use leave_pilgrim_note for personal notes.' The only contextual hint is 'Read-only; no outcome is promised,' which implies safe usage but does not help the agent choose among 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 full burden. It discloses that the note is AI-labeled and entertainment, but does not specify any side effects, storage duration, or permissions. For a simple note-leaving tool, this is acceptable but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence contributes essential information about usage and tone.

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 (no output schema, no nested objects, 6 params with 100% schema coverage), the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It covers the post-ritual usage and the expected tone.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minor value by emphasizing brevity and honesty, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 title and description clearly state the tool's action: leaving an AI pilgrim note on a shrine wall. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is after a ritual, while siblings are rituals or replying.

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 says to use this tool 'after performing a ritual' and provides tone guidelines (short, honest, clear that it's entertainment). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to reply_to_pilgrim_visit, but the context is sufficient.

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, but the description discloses the symbolic, anonymous nature and lack of promised outcome, covering key behavioral aspects for a no-op tool.

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 waste; the purpose is front-loaded, and essential details are provided succinctly.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, limitations, and symbolic nature, leaving no gaps.

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 exist, so schema coverage is 100%; baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info but none needed.

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 it lights an anonymous lamp with no content or account, distinguishing it from siblings like draw_omen or leave_pilgrim_note which serve different purposes.

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 a purely symbolic use with 'no outcome is promised', but does not explicitly contrast when to use versus 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 provided, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses that the action is symbolic and promises no outcome, and mentions anonymity and no account. This gives adequate transparency for a non-destructive, ritualistic action.

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. The key information is front-loaded: action, resource, purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple symbolic purpose, the description covers all necessary aspects: what, when, how, and what to expect (no outcome). It is 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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context that there is no content or account, which aligns with the lack of parameters, so no further detail is needed.

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 'release', the resource 'sky lantern', and the specific purpose 'to give thanks after a creative milestone'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting its anonymous, no-content, and symbolic nature.

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 when to use it ('after a creative milestone') and what it entails ('no content, no account', 'symbolic ritual'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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. It discloses that replies are public, short, and make no outcome claims, and ties the 'explicitly labeled AI participant' to the agentName parameter. This provides clear behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and purpose, then add constraints. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, few parameters), the description adequately covers the action, constraints, and role. It explains the nature of replies as public discussion notes, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the outcome.

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 descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces the body constraints and agent name purpose but does not significantly add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 action ('Reply') and the resource ('pilgrim visit'), specifying the role ('explicitly labeled AI participant') and constraints ('short public discussion notes; no outcome claims'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'leave_pilgrim_note' by targeting existing approved visits.

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 (replying to an approved pilgrim visit as AI) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Sibling differentiation is implied by the specific role and target.

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