agentready

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the output in detail (e.g., prioritized fixes, evidence, acceptance assertions) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or failure modes. The description is informative but incomplete.

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 efficiently conveys the action, input, and output. Every part is substantive; no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., URL must be publicly accessible), but for a simple read-only scan tool, it is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'url' parameter. The tool description ('Scan a public URL') adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema already documents the parameter well.

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 scans a public URL and returns a structured 'Fix Pack v2' with specific components (fixes, evidence, URLs, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the unique output format.

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 (provide URL, get fixes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the siblings 'scan_url' or 'verify_fixes'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral nuance (repository paths remain candidate until resolved), but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant 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 two sentences: the first front-loads purpose and outputs, the second adds a behavioral detail. It is efficient with no redundant information. However, the second sentence could be clearer or integrated better.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return values adequately. However, it omits usage guidelines and behavioral transparency (like safety profile), which would be needed for full completeness. It meets the minimum but has gaps.

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 'url' parameter has a description). The tool's description adds that the URL must be public, which is slightly beyond the schema, but does not provide additional meaning like formatting constraints or examples. 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 verb 'Run an AgentReady scan', the resource 'public URL', and specifies the return values (score, findings, priorities, Fix Pack contract). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_fix_pack' and 'verify_fixes' which perform different functions.

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 is used for scanning a public URL, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after a scan, use get_fix_pack to retrieve results). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites 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?

The description explains how a fix closes (finding id absent) and the role of score delta, offering good disclosure for a read-like verification 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, though it could mention output format.

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?

While behavioral details are given, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return value; it hints but does not specify the full result structure.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the previous_fix_pack structure beyond the schema, aiding correct usage.

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 re-scans a URL to evaluate fix-specific stable ids, distinguishing it from siblings like get_fix_pack and scan_url.

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 specifies using a previous fix pack (v1 or v2) and implies it is called after get_fix_pack, providing clear context without explicit alternatives.

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