ai-agent-scratchpad

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether an existing checkpoint tag is overwritten, what happens if keys are invalid, or what the tool returns. The description only states the core action without side effects or edge-case behavior.

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, containing two short sentences that front-load the primary action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential function and optional key filtering. However, it omits return values, error conditions, and usage context, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps, leaving some ambiguity 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'keys' behavior is already redundant with the schema's own parameter description, so it adds no significant semantic value beyond the structured data.

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 saves a snapshot of the current session state under a checkpoint tag, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (delete, write, read) by introducing a unique checkpoint/snapshot capability.

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 its siblings. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'deletes' without disclosing irreversibility, effects on missing keys, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 in Korean that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 and the complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., irreversibility) and usage guidance leaves clear gaps, preventing a higher score.

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 already provides descriptions for both required parameters (key, session_id), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action and target: 'Deletes a specific key from the session.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scratchpad_write (add/update) and scratchpad_read, using a specific verb and resource.

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, nor any context about prerequisites or situations where deletion is appropriate. The description is purely functional with no usage cues.

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 says 'returns diff' and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how it handles missing keys or checkpoints, or what happens if conflicting parameters (e.g., key and value_a) are supplied together. The ambiguity between the two modes is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences, immediately states the primary function and the alternative mode. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is ideally sized for quick comprehension.

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?

This tool has five parameters and two distinct modes, but the description does not map the modes to the parameters. An agent would not know whether to use key/checkpoint_tag or value_a/value_b, nor what the output diff is. With no output schema and no annotations, this level of under-specification leaves important gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning 'current key value' and 'two arbitrary values,' hinting at parameter groups (key/checkpoint_tag vs. value_a/value_b), but it does not specify which parameters belong to which mode or how they interact. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, so the description's extra semantics are modest.

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 returns a diff between a current key value and a checkpoint, or between two arbitrary values. It uses a specific verb ('returns diff') and identifies the resource (scratchpad), and the two modes distinguish it from sibling tools like read, write, and list. However, it could be more explicit about what form the diff takes (e.g., textual, structural) or when each mode applies.

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 comparing values or checking differences versus a checkpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like scratchpad_read or scratchpad_checkpoint. It lacks direct guidance on choosing between the two diff modes or prerequisites like needing a checkpoint.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the operation lists keys and supports prefix filtering, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state non-mutating nature, ordering, or pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 in Korean that states the primary purpose first, followed by the optional capability. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any mention of the required session_id or the limit parameter, relying entirely on the schema. It also lacks comparative context with sibling tools, which is needed for a complete picture.

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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions prefix filtering, which is already documented in the schema. It adds no extra meaning for session_id or limit 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the list of all keys in the session and supports optional prefix filtering. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like scratchpad_read or scratchpad_write.

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. It only describes what it does, without mentioning exclusions or suggesting when to prefer this over scratchpad_read or other sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation ('look up value') and lacks detail on behavior for missing keys, return format, or guarantees that no side effects occur. It is truthful but minimal.

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 short, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire purpose without redundancy. 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?

For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description adequately conveys the core operation and implies the return value. However, since there is no output schema, it could better specify the return format or behavior when a key is absent.

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% with both 'session_id' and 'key' described. The 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 '세션의 특정 키 값을 조회합니다' provides a specific verb (조회/query) and resource (specific key value in the session). It clearly indicates a read operation and is distinguishable from sibling tools like scratchpad_write and scratchpad_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of scratchpad_list, diff, or write. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that value must be a string or JSON serializable, but does not disclose whether writes overwrite existing keys, how TTL behaves, or whether a session is auto-created. This is a mutation tool where such details are important.

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 action. There is no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a write tool. It fails to explain return values, overwrite semantics, TTL behavior, or any error conditions. The provided information is only minimally sufficient to understand what the tool does, not how it behaves in practice.

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%, with all four parameters already having descriptions. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the value type constraint already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 clearly states the tool's action: '세션에 키-값을 저장합니다' (stores key-value in session). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scratchpad_read, scratchpad_delete, and scratchpad_list, which handle other operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or any explicit exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools is present in the signal, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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