hebcal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only states the conversion action and does not detail output format, error handling, valid date ranges, or any potential limitations. For an agent to use this tool correctly, knowledge of the Hebrew date format (e.g., string representation) is missing.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 conversion tool with one fully described parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of any mention of the return format leaves an important gap. An agent would need additional information to know what the converted Hebrew date looks like.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'date' with its format (yyyy-MM-dd). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 tool's function: 'Converts a Gregorian (civil) date to a Hebrew date (Jewish calendar)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'convert-hebrew-to-gregorian' by specifying the conversion direction.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the reverse conversion is available via a sibling tool, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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 the full burden. It states only 'converts' without disclosing edge cases, validation rules, or calendar calculation specifics. This is minimal but matches the straightforward nature of the 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It fully conveys the purpose without waste.

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 conversion tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It fully captures the tool's function, and no additional behavior is needed for correct 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 100%, and each parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Hebrew day of month'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?

The description 'Converts a Hebrew date to a Gregorian (civil) date' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the conversion direction. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'convert-gregorian-to-hebrew' by making the input/output orientation explicit.

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 clearly states the conversion direction, so when to use is implied. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions; for a simple conversion tool the context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'calculates' the Daf Yomi, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not describe output format, error behavior, date range constraints, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'learning' means as a return value (e.g., tractate and page). It also lacks any mention of date range limitations (e.g., Daf Yomi cycle start) or potential edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to anticipate results.

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%: the 'date' parameter is described as 'Gregorian date in yyyy-MM-dd format'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Calculates' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Daf Yomi (Babylonian Talmud) learning' for a specified date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like date converters and holiday calculators.

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 a specified date) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name and general context.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Calculates a list of all Jewish holidays' but does not clarify the scope of 'all Jewish holidays' (e.g., major vs. minor, Orthodox vs. Reform), the output format, or any edge cases like year boundaries or timezone handling. The lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. This is an example of concise, effective writing.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining the return value and any nuance. It only says 'list of all Jewish holidays' without specifying the structure, whether dates are included, or the full set of holidays considered. The absence of this detail makes the description incomplete for an agent needing to understand what the tool will return.

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% because the only parameter 'year' is described as 'Gregorian year.' The description reinforces this by mentioning 'Gregorian (civil) year,' adding the clarifying word 'civil.' Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds only marginal value, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Calculates a list of all Jewish holidays during a Gregorian (civil) year.' The verb 'Calculates' is specific, the resource is 'a list of all Jewish holidays,' and the scope is 'during a Gregorian (civil) year.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert-gregorian-to-hebrew or shabbat-times, 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning potential use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more appropriate. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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 transparency burden, but it only states the high-level function without detailing output format, calculation parameters (e.g., Havdalah offset), error handling, or behavior for non-Shabbat weekdays. It does not contradict any structured data, but it leaves significant behavior unspecified.

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, grammatically correct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key objects. There is zero redundant or vague phrasing—every word contributes meaning. This is an ideal length for a tool with self-explanatory parameters.

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?

The absence of an output schema places the burden on the description to explain what the tool returns, but it does not. With 5 parameters and no output details, an agent would lack critical information about the response structure, including whether times are localized, what format, and how holidays are handled. The description is a thin wrapper over the function signature.

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 100% coverage with descriptive comments for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Latitude/longitude/tzid are well-defined in the schema, and date formats are specified.

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 ('Generates') and resource ('Shabbat and holiday candle-lighting and Havdalah times') with clear scoping ('for a given location and date range'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'daf-yomi' and 'jewish-holidays-year' by focusing on time-based output, which is unique across the list.

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 clear use case: obtain religious time calculations for a specified location and date range. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tools are functionally distinct (conversions, holiday lists), so the context is unambiguous. A minor deduction for not explicitly naming 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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'calculates' without mentioning output format, edge cases, or how the 'il' parameter affects results. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and well-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?

For a straightforward calculation tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the input date. It does not describe the return format, but the output is strongly implied by the stated purpose, and the schema covers the 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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (date and il) with clear descriptions, so the description adds no extra semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 calculates the weekly Torah portion for a specified date, identifying both the verb and the resource. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 phrase 'for a specified date' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like daf-yomi or shabbat-times. No exclusions or alternative recommendations 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation is according to the Hebrew calendar, but omits how 'afterSunset' affects the date calculation, what the return value is, and how edge cases (e.g., Hebrew dates without a corresponding Gregorian anniversary) are handled.

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 unnecessary details. It efficiently captures the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal context. The description does not explain what the output is (e.g., a Hebrew date or Gregorian date) or the precise effect of 'afterSunset', making it incomplete for a tool with only two parameters that are both required.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying 'date' is the date of death, but it does not clarify the 'afterSunset' parameter beyond the schema's terse 'after sunset', leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 the specific verb 'Calculates' and clearly identifies the resource: the Yahrzeit, defined as the anniversary of a death date according to the Hebrew calendar. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conversions and holiday calculators because it concerns a personal anniversary, not a general conversion or holiday lookup.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert-gregorian-to-hebrew. The only cue is the implicit purpose from the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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