Agent Provider Depot

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable output behavior: it returns a dated editorial Depot Pick, runner-up, price with source URL and date, when not to take it, and reportOutcome. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds substantial context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and remains compact despite covering categories, input mode, return format, and an alternative tool. It is dense and uses internal jargon like 'jtbd', 'Depot Pick', and 'reportOutcome', but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including price provenance and a runner-up. The main gap is the undocumented 'full' parameter, which is absent from both the schema description and the tool description.

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 high at 83%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description restates that a task can be sent in words or via a jtbd id, but it does not explain the 'full', 'existing', 'maxMonthly', or 'constraints' parameters beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Choose a provider before writing integration code', then scopes it with concrete provider categories. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling depot by routing 'Quotes, comparisons, audits' there, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition ('before writing integration code') and an explicit alternative for quotes, comparisons, and audits ('depot'). It does not explain when to use rescue or session_brief, but the primary routing decision is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some context ('report_outcome ... after acting' implies a post-action write; 'check ... deprecated/retired flags' hints at a read), but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what state each op changes.

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 dense but appropriately sized for 18 operations, and it front-loads the call pattern. However, it is a single run-on semicolon list mixing op names, argument hints, and terse glosses, which hurts scanability.

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 complex 18-op multiplexer with no output schema, the description covers the op menu and some argument names but says nothing about return values, error behavior, or domain context. The 'op=help' escape hatch helps, but an agent still lacks enough information to invoke many ops confidently.

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%: op is an undescribed enum and args is an untyped object. The description is the only source of argument names and maps most ops to expected args (e.g., quote(jtbd), estimate(jtbd, workload), audit_repo(packages, models)), which is substantial compensation. It still omits types, requiredness, and detailed meaning for several no-arg ops.

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 enumerates many specific operations (quote, estimate, audit_repo, etc.), so concrete actions are visible. But it never states what 'depot' is or the overarching task beyond 'drill-down', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings decide/rescue/session_brief. Purpose is inferable but not clearly stated.

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?

Only invocation mechanics are given ('One op per call', 'after acting', 'op=help lists args'). There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no alternative routing to decide/rescue/session_brief, and no prerequisite context. The agent must guess which op fits a given situation.

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses return content (cause, immediate fix, fallback route) and the no-match branch with checks to run. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-only diagnostic tool the remaining gap is minor.

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 tightly packed sentences with no wasted clauses. The purpose and input expectation are front-loaded, followed immediately by the return behavior and the exclusion.

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 no output schema, the description explains both the success return shape and the no-match outcome. It also covers the key input pattern and names the alternative tool, so an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds only illustrative error values and says to paste 'the exact error and provider id,' which reinforces usage but does not meaningfully expand parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose a failing third-party API call') and enumerates the error classes it handles (429, 402, 529, insufficient_quota, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the 'decide' sibling, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('before you retry or swap') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: 'Not for picking a provider (decide).' This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns `clear|changed|attention`, at most 3 actions with source and falsifier, and a new cursor, and it advises against sending a manifest. It stops short of explaining rate limits or deeper operational constraints, so 4 rather than 5.

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 appropriately sized and front-loads the session-start trigger and return shape. However, the telegraphic phrasing (`pick changes`, `source, falsifier`) and compressed fragments make it slightly harder to parse than a cleaner prose version would be.

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 6 parameters, a nested `policies` object, no output schema, and schema descriptions missing on `policies`, the description does well on input basics and return statuses. It is incomplete because it never explains `policies`, `maxMonthlyUsd`, `requireVerifiedOutcome`, or `stackFingerprint`, which leaves an agent without guidance on those optional but potentially important inputs.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including `cursor`, `models`, `packages`, `providers`, and `stackFingerprint`. The description reinforces the cursor and provider/model/package submission pattern but does not explain the nested `policies` object or the `stackFingerprint` parameter, leaving a gap despite the high baseline 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 states a specific session-start purpose: reporting what changed for the caller's stack since the last call, with concrete examples like retired models, price changes, and deprecated packages. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by routing new choices to `decide` and live errors to `rescue`.

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?

It explicitly says to use this at session start if the code calls third-party APIs, and it names alternatives for two important cases: `decide` for a new choice and `rescue` for a live error. It also gives submission guidance by saying to send provider, model, and package ids, never a manifest.

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