agentready

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions scanning a public URL and returning a structured output, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as rate limits, caching, or side effects. The lack of detail is mitigated by the read-only nature implied by 'scan'.

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 is both concise and informative. It front-loads the action ('Scan a public URL') and then details the output, making it easy to parse. No 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does, though it could mention potential failure modes or edge cases.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is identical to the tool description's mention of 'Public site URL'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'Scan a public URL' and the resource 'Fix Pack v2', listing specific outputs like prioritized fixes, stable ids, evidence, etc. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by specifying a structured fix pack with review gates and acceptance assertions.

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 that the tool is used to get prioritized fixes from a public URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (scan_url, verify_fixes). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the scan is non-destructive and returns a score plus findings, and includes a note about repository paths being candidate targets until proved. However, it doesn't cover authentication, idempotency, or potential side effects.

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 the first sentence stating the action and main outputs. No extraneous information; each sentence adds value. The structure is 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, return values, and a behavioral nuance. It could mention idempotency or rate limits, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url', which is described as 'Public site URL (https://example.com)'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating that it's a public URL, so 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 'Run an AgentReady scan' and the resource 'a public URL'. It lists specific return values (score, findings, top priorities, Fix Pack contract) and differentiates from siblings (get_fix_pack, verify_fixes).

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 context is implied by the purpose (scanning a site for agent readiness) but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_fix_pack or verify_fixes, nor when not to use it.

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 full burden. It explains the core behavior: re-scanning, evaluating stable IDs, and closure logic (finding id absent vs score delta). However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions—details important for tool invocation.

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 redundancy. The first sentence states the verb and resource, the second clarifies key nuance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary 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 tool is moderately complex (re-scan, evaluation, fix closure logic) and has no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return format, structure, or next steps. The agent lacks information on what to expect after invocation, making the description incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context: 'previous v1 or v2 Fix Pack' and 'stable ids', which provides meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on param syntax or constraints, making the addition 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 action: 'Re-scan a public URL and evaluate fix-specific stable ids from a previous v1 or v2 Fix Pack.' It also explains what constitutes a fix close, which differentiates it from siblings like scan_url (general scan) and get_fix_pack (retrieve pack).

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 after obtaining a previous Fix Pack, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., scan_url, get_fix_pack). No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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