Forest Factory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavioral context: the $0.004 USDC cost per successful call, which signals this is a paid external operation. However, it omits other important traits such as whether it is read-only, rate limits, and what (beyond the listed artifact types) is returned.

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 tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the pricing constraint appended after. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates the artifact types it returns (docs, portal, base URLs, auth docs) and cost, which is nearly everything an agent needs to decide and call. Slightly short of complete because it does not clarify output structure or reliability of the discovered URLs.

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?

Only one parameter ('url') exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining it as a public HTTP(S) URL to inspect, resolve, or compare. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') with concrete resources: API docs, developer portal, candidate base URLs, and auth docs. An agent can tell this is a discovery/inspection tool, though it never names how it differs from siblings like domain_preflight or release_asset_resolve, which also resolve web 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over the sibling preflight/resolve tools. The discovery intent is only implied by the resource list.

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 behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool only reports provider evidence, never infers inventory, never reserves, and never places an order, and it discloses a per-call cost of $0.002 USDC. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error/failure behavior, which keeps it out of the top score.

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 tight sentences with the core function front-loaded, followed by the negative guarantees and then the price. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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 output schema, the description should say more about what is returned; 'explicit normalized states' hints at a return shape but never enumerates the states, so an agent cannot fully predict the response. It is otherwise adequate for a two-parameter read-only resolver.

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 schema already documents both the url and the nested variant parameter. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond what the schema says, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('resolve') with a specific resource ('public product or listing availability') and adds scope ('explicit normalized states'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, commerce_buyability, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between availability and buyability.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over commerce_buyability or the other preflight/resolve siblings. The 'never infers inventory, reserves items or places an order' line is a behavioral guarantee about side effects, not usage guidance, so the agent gets little help routing between the six tools.

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 and does so well: it discloses that it never signs in, buys, creates an order, or guarantees checkout, and that the verdict is soft ('appears buyable'). It also surfaces a per-call cost of $0.003 USDC per successful call, which is meaningful operational context. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or auth needs, keeping it off a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verdict and followed by the scope caveat and cost. No filler, though the cost sentence could arguably be metadata rather than description content.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry the load, and it does communicate what the result means (buyable vs explicit blockers like out-of-stock or unknown). It omits any detail about the nested variant object's expected shape or the result payload structure, which is a modest gap rather than a critical one.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (url, variant, quantity). The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; note the nested 'variant' object is left entirely to 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 precise verb+resource: reporting whether a public item 'appears buyable' and surfacing explicit blockers. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling commerce_availability by framing the result as a buyability verdict with blockers, but never names or contrasts the sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'This is a preflight only' tells the agent this is a pre-purchase check and explicitly not a purchase step, which is useful scoping. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to commerce_availability or domain_preflight, leaving the choice between sibling tools to inference.

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 and does well: it discloses the resolution methods (IANA-routed RDAP, bounded TLS probe), the explicit handling of provider uncertainty, the cost ('$0.003 USDC per successful call'), and the privacy boundary. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, keeping it just below a 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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded and earning its place: capability, explicit exclusions, and pricing. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the categories of state returned (registration, DNS, TLS, mail policy) and the cost model. It could go slightly further on return shape, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter (bare DNS name, not URL/path/IP/email). The description only restates 'bare public domain', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('bare public domain') and enumerates the exact state domains returned: registration, DNS, HTTPS/TLS and mail-policy. This is clearly distinct from siblings like package_preflight (different resource) and api_discover, without needing to open any 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?

Strong negative scoping ('No registrant personal data, vulnerability scanning, mailbox existence or deliverability claim') tells the agent what this tool will NOT do, which implicitly routes those needs elsewhere. It does not name the specific sibling alternatives or state explicit when-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 burden and does so reasonably: it discloses a hard scope limit (public registries only), a failure-mode contract ('unsupported provider fields are null'), and the cost model ('$0.002 USDC per successful call') — the latter being critical for an agent deciding whether to call. It omits rate limits and auth/settlement requirements, so not a 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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence covering scope and outputs, followed by two short constraint/cost sentences. Every clause earns its place, though the output-field list is long enough that it reads as a run-on rather than structured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their null behavior, plus the pricing/scope constraints. An agent knows what it gets back and what it pays. Only auth/settlement mechanics and pagination (if any) are left unstated.

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% with only 3 flat parameters, so the schema already documents package, version, and ecosystem (with enum). The description's mention of 'requested-version existence' vs 'resolved/latest version' implies how the optional version parameter is used, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Normalize ... package reality') and resource ('npm or PyPI package'), then enumerates exactly which facts are resolved: existence, version existence, resolved/latest, staleness, deprecation/yank, license, runtime requirement. Sibling names (domain_preflight, release_asset_resolve) are distinct enough that this is clearly the package-registry variant.

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 real boundary conditions: 'Public registries only' and 'No dependency graph or vulnerability analysis', which tells the agent when NOT to use it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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 behavioral burden well: it discloses excluded file types, checksum companion linking, ambiguity-return behavior, no private repo/auth support, and a per-successful-call price. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or idempotency.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose before behavior and constraints. No filler, though the first sentence is long and dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It says it returns ambiguity instead of silently choosing ties and links checksum companions, but does not describe the successful return shape (asset URL, name, checksum fields).

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description mentions 'normalized OS/architecture target' and 'public GitHub release' but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('public GitHub release') and the precise result ('most plausible downloadable asset for a normalized OS/architecture target'). The domain and exclusions clearly distinguish it from the sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement: use this when you need a downloadable asset for a given OS/arch. The public-only constraint ('No private repositories') is a when-not, but there are no explicit alternatives named or conditions for choosing among siblings.

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