tempmd

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the exact scope of inspection (lifecycle, expiry, etc.). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the safety hints.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'inspect'. Every word adds value, no wasted repetition or 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 read tool with no output schema, the description lists the categories of information returned (lifecycle, expiry, etc.), which gives the agent a good sense of the output. It is sufficiently complete given the low complexity and rich annotations.

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 both parameters clearly described. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (temp_id and update_token) beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and lists the aspects inspected (lifecycle, expiry, restore eligibility, ownership, moderation, settings), clearly distinguishing this read-only detail tool from siblings like list_temps (list all), update_temp (modify), etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for inspecting a specific temp, but does not state when to choose it over list_temps or other tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait that it lists only Temps owned by the provided API key, which is useful context beyond the 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context of ownership. It could mention pagination or ordering, but the current level is adequate for a straightforward listing operation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter info but does explain the implicit authorization 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 tool lists 'Temps owned by the account API key', specifying both the resource and the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_temp_status or publish_temp.

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, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond the API key.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds ownership detail based on API key but does not describe response behavior or side effects beyond the public URL.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add critical guidelines. Front-loaded and 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 no output schema, the description should indicate return values (e.g., the public URL). It covers the main action and key behavior but omits response details, leaving the agent guessing about the result.

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 partially compensates by mentioning 'index.html' for the path and 'inline text or base64' for encoding. However, it does not explain title, spa_mode, or idempotency_key.

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 'publish' and the resource 'inline text or base64 bundle to a stable public URL'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_temp' by focusing on initial publication.

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 provides specific guidance to send index.html as the main page and explains idempotency and ownership. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases like updates or mention 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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that the tool rotates tokens, implying mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects beyond 'rotate every prior scoped update token'.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action and then states the key requirement. Efficient and direct.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks explanation of the parameter. It provides purpose and auth but not enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional context.

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 single parameter 'temp_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what 'temp_id' represents. The description refers to 'scoped update token' but does not connect it to the parameter.

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 ('Rotate every prior scoped update token') and resource ('scoped update tokens'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like get_temp_status or list_temps. It clearly defines what the tool does.

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 includes the authentication requirement ('Requires an owning account API key'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore_temp or publish_temp.

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 indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the URL remains unchanged, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it could mention what happens if the Temp is not expired or outside the grace period.

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, well-structured sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Reactivate' and conveys all essential information without unnecessary verbiage.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and constraints. It lacks explicit handling of auth/update_token edge cases, but the schema and annotations fill some gaps. Overall, it is adequately 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 100%, and both parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's effect rather than parameter details. Thus, 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 the action ('Reactivate an expired Temp'), the condition ('during its restore grace period'), and the key behavioral detail ('without changing its URL'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like publish_temp or update_temp, 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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: when a Temp is expired and within its restore grace period. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., get_temp_status, recover_update_token) offer context for alternative actions.

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?

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not explain the effects of toggling, potential side effects, or required permissions.

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 no wasted words. However, the term 'Toggle' is slightly inaccurate given the boolean parameter, which slightly reduces clarity efficiency.

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 description lacks context about when to use this tool, error conditions, and what happens on success. No output schema exists, so the agent is left uninformed about the response.

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 provides meaning for the enabled parameter ('pinned visitor feedback') that is not in the schema, but lacks detail for all parameters. With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds moderate 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 states the tool toggles pinned visitor feedback on a Temp, which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_temp or publish_temp. However, using 'Toggle' is slightly imprecise since the enabled parameter sets a specific boolean state rather than flipping the current state.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the Temp must exist or be in a certain state, nor when to use get_temp_status or update_temp instead.

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?

The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that a fixed snapshot URL is created while the canonical URL continues to track the latest version. This is non-destructive (consistent with destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral nuance.

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 unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 description explains the core purpose but does not mention return values (no output schema) or what the user receives upon success. Given the tool's moderate complexity and available annotations, it is minimally adequate but could be enhanced.

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 add any meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already covers temp_id and update_token; label is missing from the description. With 67% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented label parameter.

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 creates a fixed snapshot URL for the current version, distinguishing it from the canonical URL that tracks the latest. This differentiates it from sibling tools like publish_temp or restore_temp.

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 when a fixed reference to a version is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_temp or restore_temp, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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 provide idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint. Description adds atomicity and rollback behavior ('previous Version stays live if this call fails'), which is beyond annotations. Does not detail authorization requirements or rate limits beyond what schema provides.

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 key behavior. Every sentence provides critical 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?

Given complexity (6 params, nested array) and presence of annotations, description covers the key behavioral traits (atomic update, fallback). No output schema, but description does not need to explain return values. Could mention idempotency support.

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 33% (6 params, but only temp_id and update_token have descriptions in schema; files array items have descriptions). Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in 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?

Description clearly states it atomically publishes a new bundle behind the same URL, with clear verb 'publish' and resource 'Temp'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_temp by focusing on updating an existing temp.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like publish_temp or restore_temp. The description implies it's for updating an existing temp, but does not state when not to use or provide comparative context.

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