trimtab-ais

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (own-recorded AIS) and that coverage is disclosed per response, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. Could mention freshness or rate limits for 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and details. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return content. Could benefit from mentioning response format (e.g., counts per gateway) but is sufficient for an optional single-parameter tool.

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 clear parameter description. The description adds value by explaining the response structure (vessels by class and terminal), enriching the parameter's meaning.

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 the tool returns current conditions at container gateways including vessel counts by class and terminal breakdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'has_vessel_berthed' (individual vessel check) and 'recent_events'.

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 explains what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies it's for aggregate gateway conditions, but lacks direct guidance on scenarios.

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 full burden. It discloses basic behavior (checks berthing, returns events) but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. It does not describe the return structure beyond mentioning timestamps and terminal.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words. However, it could be structured as two sentences for clarity (one for purpose, one for return value).

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and the nature of the return value (events with timestamps and terminal). However, it does not specify whether the return is a boolean or a list, nor the exact fields of the event objects. More detail would improve completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely paraphrases 'lookback window' and mentions return content. 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 ('whether a vessel has berthed'), the resource ('vessel at monitored gateway'), and the scope ('within a lookback window'). It also specifies the return value ('berthing event(s) with timestamps and terminal when known'). This clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on berthing events.

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 vs alternatives (gateway_conditions, recent_events, vessel_status). The description does not mention prerequisites or cases where this tool is inappropriate. The agent must infer from sibling names.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves agents without safety context for invoking this 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 sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose and lists event types. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be slightly more structured with explicit 'Returns' or 'Filters' wording.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or constraints like the 200-row cap. Agents lack enough context to fully understand the response or handle the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the list of event types but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage, format, or behaviors beyond what the schema already 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 it provides 'Recent detected events' with a list of specific event types, which identifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and no direct differentiation from sibling tools is provided, though the event types distinguish it from conditions or status checks.

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 the tool should be used to retrieve recent events at gateways, but it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like gateway_conditions or vessel_status, nor does it provide 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'last observed status', meaning a snapshot of current data, and lists output fields. It does not mention caching, update frequency, or error behavior, but for a read-only query it provides reasonable transparency.

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 that front-loads the main action and lists key details efficiently. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and return fields adequately. It omits edge cases like vessel not found, but for a status lookup this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'query' (vessel name or MMSI, case-insensitive). The description repeats this information and adds context about output, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 specifies the verb 'get status' and resource 'vessel', explains lookup by name (partial) or MMSI, and lists specific output fields (position, state, zone, terminal, speed, destination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gateway_conditions, has_vessel_berthed, and recent_events.

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 retrieving last observed status but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. Given sibling tools, the context is implied but not explicit.

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