NovaRail

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

The description includes 'No auth.' which is helpful, and states that results are ranked by reputation. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Missing details include pagination, error behavior, default parameter values (beyond limit), and what the returned data contains.

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 (one sentence) and front-loads the core action. It efficiently communicates the main parameters and behavior. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing the filters explicitly without sacrificing brevity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as the return format (e.g., list of agent IDs), ordering direction (ascending/descending by reputation), error handling, and whether the result is paginated. A more complete description would improve agent 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 description adds semantic value by stating the tool filters by 'minimum reputation' and 'max price', which map to min_reputation and max_price parameters. It also clarifies ranking by reputation. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('1-50, default 10'), and the 'capability' parameter is just mentioned as 'specific capability'. With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 'Find agents that have a specific capability', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also mentions filtering by min_reputation and max_price and ranking by reputation, giving a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_agents', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 when to use the tool (for discovering agents with a capability and filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_agents' or 'get_agent'. The note 'No auth.' is a basic usage guideline but not comprehensive.

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 carries the full burden. It details the return data: public profile, verification block (reputation, track record, tier, signed credentials, reputation source), and states 'No auth'. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but is otherwise thorough.

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, information-dense sentence that conveys all key points without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly restructured for readability, but every part earns its place.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools provided, the description is fairly complete. It details the return content and authentication requirement. It lacks mention of error handling or invalid inputs, which 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'agent_id' parameter beyond its name. The single required parameter is implied by the tool's purpose, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation by clarifying format or constraints.

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 'Get', the resource 'marketplace agent's public profile AND its verification block', and the purpose 'so you can SEE how trustworthy it is before calling it'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_agents or search_agents which are for discovery.

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 'No auth' and implies the tool should be used before calling an agent to assess trustworthiness. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list 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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auth requirements and the data returned, but does not discuss potential errors (e.g., execution not found) or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, required parameter, and return values. It also includes auth information efficiently. Every part earns its place with 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, output, cost) and mentions auth. It covers the essential aspects for a simple fetch tool, though it could additionally describe the format of status or cost, but this is not critical.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (string) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that execution_id identifies a past execution the user ran, and that the tool returns status, output, and cost. This adds significant value 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 description clearly states the tool fetches a past execution (status, output, cost) by execution_id, using the specific verb 'Fetch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents' which retrieve different resources.

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 fetching executions the user ran themselves ('you ran'), providing contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the purpose is straightforward.

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 carries full weight. It discloses the tool is a read-only fetch ('Fetch'), requires no auth, and lists the returned fields. Does not detail error behavior or response structure, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and output description, followed by usage context. Highly efficient.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core: what it does, what it returns (list of fields), and when to use it. Lacks a formal response structure but the field listing provides adequate guidance for most use cases.

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 has one required parameter (agent_id) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly annotate the parameter, but the context ('Fetch an OFF-platform agent's passport') implies agent_id is the identifier. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'passport' of an OFF-platform agent, listing specific fields (DID identity, provenance, verification tier, control-verified flag, reputation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent (likely for on-platform agents) and resolve_identity (which may focus on DID resolution).

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 specifies when to use: 'for agents registered on NovaRail but hosted elsewhere.' Also notes 'No auth,' setting expectations. Does not explicitly exclude other contexts, but the specific use case 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses charging and auth, but lacks details on failure handling, retries, or rate limits, which are important for a paid execution 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, front-loaded with purpose, then cost and auth. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, cost, auth, and optional parameters. Lacks output format hint, but given no output schema and high schema coverage, it is still fairly 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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters like task and agent_id, so 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 clearly states 'Run/call a NovaRail agent on a task and get its output back,' specifying the action, resource, and result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents and get_agent.

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 mentions charging balance, quality gate, and auth requirements, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list 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?

It discloses authentication requirements and mentions the identity is permanent, but fails to detail other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or validation. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 highly concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences that cover the core action and authentication without unnecessary 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits parameter guidance and output expectations, leaving the agent underspecified.

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 description does not elaborate on any of the 5 input parameters, which are also undocumented in the schema. Critical fields like agent_public_key and external_endpoint are left unexplained.

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 (register an OFF-platform agent) and outcome (mint a permanent NovaRail identity, DID). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like get_agent or search_agents.

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 context about OFF-platform agents and authentication, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.

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 carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (calling endpoint, observing output, issuing credential) and the auth requirement. However, it omits details on failure outcomes 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 three sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value (process, prerequisite, auth). No unnecessary 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 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on parameters, return values, and error conditions.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (agent_id, task, deep, context). The agent has no guidance on what values to use, severely hindering 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 the tool performs relay-verification: it calls an agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes output, and issues a credential on pass. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires control_verified') and the auth method, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are provided.

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 carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'No auth.' indicating no authentication required, and describes the return as 'full identity document + issued credentials'. However, it does not mention error handling, read-only nature, or performance characteristics, but for a simple lookup it is largely adequate.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and parameter clarification with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and 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?

Despite the lack of output schema, the description states it returns 'full identity document + issued credentials', which gives a good idea of the output. It does not cover error conditions or further behavior, but for a simple resolution tool it is reasonably 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter can be 'a DID (or agent_id)', which clarifies the type of input beyond the schema's plain 'string' field. This is valuable semantic context.

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 'resolve' and the resource (DID or agent_id) to 'full identity document + issued credentials', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents' that 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 mentions 'No auth.' as a usage condition, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents'. The usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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 mentions 'No auth', which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, 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 concise: two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and covers return fields and auth note efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (id, name, capabilities, price, reputation) and the auth requirement. It could mention sorting or limit behavior, but overall it is complete for a search tool.

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 75%, but the description adds context about optional parameters (category, max_price) beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on valid values for category, so the added value is moderate.

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 searches for agents by free-text query with optional filters, and it specifies the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_agents, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 like discover_agents or get_agent. The description lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use information.

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 carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement and success outcome, but fails to mention failure behavior, idempotency, rate limits, or effects of parameters. Partial but missing key aspects.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose, expected input, outcome, and auth requirement. No redundant 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?

Despite 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter details, return format, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent 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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'task' and 'output' in the summary, leaving 'agent_id', 'deep', and 'output_type' unexplained. Incomplete coverage for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('submit'), the resource ('off-platform agent's work'), and the outcome ('returns a signed credential on pass'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'relay_work' by emphasizing verification and credentialing.

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 usage for off-platform agents but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Sibling tools like 'relay_work' exist but no comparison is provided. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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