Gkmex Crane Inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'currently published' scoping constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose return shape, ordering, or failure behavior. This is acceptable given the strong 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?

A single sentence with every word contributing: verb, range, qualifier, resource, and key. It is front-loaded and free of 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 one-parameter read-only tool with an idempotency guarantee, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: what to pass, how many, and in what scope. It could mention return format, but the absent output schema and simple complexity keep this from being a major 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full semantic burden. It clarifies that the IDs are public IDs (not internal identifiers) and that two to five are expected, which is meaningful beyond the raw array schema. It doesn't specify ID format, but the semantic is sufficiently clear.

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 names a specific verb (Compare), a bounded resource (currently published Gkmex cranes), a count (two to five), and a key (public ID). This clearly distinguishes it from get_crane (single crane) and list_cranes (enumerate cranes).

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 usage context is clear: use when comparing multiple published cranes by their public IDs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's stated scope and the two-to-five constraint make the appropriate scenario evident.

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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the 'currently published' constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention behavior for invalid/unknown IDs or what happens if the crane is not currently published.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The key constraint ('currently published') and lookup method ('public ID') are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error cases, but 'Get one... crane' reasonably implies a crane object is returned, and annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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 provides only 'id: string, minLength 1' with no description, so the description's mention of 'public ID' adds necessary meaning. This is enough for an agent to understand that the required parameter is the crane's public identifier, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one currently published Gkmex crane by its public ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_cranes and compare_cranes. An agent can immediately understand this is a single-record fetch by ID.

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 phrasing 'currently published' and 'by its public ID' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent has a public ID and needs the current published crane. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is reasonably 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 cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the meaningful scoping detail that only currently published cranes are returned, implying the result set can change over time, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response structure.

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 with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core purpose immediately and every word 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 no output schema and five optional parameters, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It fails to mention that type and brand act as filters or that limit/cursor/offset control pagination, leaving important behavioral gaps for the 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%, yet the description adds no information about the five optional parameters: type, brand, limit, cursor, and offset. An agent must infer filtering and pagination semantics entirely from parameter names and schema 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 'List' and the resource 'currently published Gkmex cranes', making the tool's scope unambiguous. The singular/plural distinction from get_crane and compare_cranes helps an agent select this tool for bulk listing.

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 phrasing 'every currently published' conveys that this tool is for retrieving the full set of published cranes, not a single crane or a comparison. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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