agentready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is static and executes no API operations, and it narrows supported inputs to OpenAPI 3.0/3.1 JSON. However, it does not describe the output format, error handling, or any limits, so the behavioral picture is 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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and scope are front-loaded, followed by the key safety guarantee that no API operation is executed. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description gives a strong account of what the tool checks and what input it accepts. The absence of an output schema or return-value description is a minor gap, but the agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly from the provided information.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'document' parameter, describing the accepted object/string forms and noting that YAML is unsupported. The description essentially restates this rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the 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 begins with the specific verb 'statically inspect' and names a precise resource: an OpenAPI 3.0 or 3.1 JSON object or JSON string. It also enumerates the audit dimensions (auth, errors, examples, retries, etc.), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 phrase 'statically inspect' and 'No API operation is executed' clearly communicates that this is the tool to use when you need an analysis of an OpenAPI document without invoking any live endpoints. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling, but the sibling tools are semantically distant enough that no exclusions are necessary.

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 exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It does: it mentions validated redirects, a bounded public page, and the specific signals inspected. It also explicitly states the limitation that 'Named-bot edge/WAF treatment remains unobservable,' which is honest and useful for setting expectations.

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 dense sentences, with the action front-loaded and the scope limitation placed at the end. Every clause adds value; there is 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?

For a single-parameter tool this is reasonably complete: it states what is fetched, how redirects are handled, what is inspected, and what remains unobservable. It does not describe the response shape or error/edge cases, but with no output schema this is a minor gap given the clarity of the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds context by indicating the URL is used to fetch robots.txt and a page, but it does not provide meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch robots.txt and a bounded public page' and lists the inspected elements. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like scan_url, so an agent must infer the difference from context.

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 the tool's internal procedure but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It also lacks exclusions or conditions such as 'use this when scanning site-level AI access rules.' The WAF limitation is behavioral, not usage-selection guidance.

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?

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it adds useful non-obvious facts: reports require explicit publisher opt-in, expire after 30 days, and 'history' returns a bounded set of saved snapshots. It does not mention error/expiry behavior or response format, but the stated lifecycle and read-only semantics are valuable.

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 deliver the what, how, the constraint, and the lifecycle without waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains a non-obvious condition for using returned reports.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the id is, when reports exist, how long they are valid, and that history is optional. Minor gaps like pagination or exact error behavior are not disclosed, but the basics are complete enough 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 schema already fully documents both report_id and history. The description only loosely reflects the history parameter ('latest' vs 'bounded history'), which does not add new meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public scan report') plus the report id mechanism, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from scan_url by referencing 'report id returned by scan_url' and from fix-related siblings by focusing on public report retrieval.

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 clear usage context: report entries only exist after explicit opt-in and expire after 30 days, and the id is the one produced by scan_url. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 discloses useful non-obvious behavior: the output includes a score, per-phase findings, top priorities, and the Fix Pack contract, and repository paths remain provisional until a resolver confirms them. But it does not mention side effects around publish_report, rate limits, permissions, or potential costs. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially satisfies it.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the scan action, and adds exactly three useful things: the result components, the Fix Pack contract, and the provisional repository-path caveat. It is compact, though the final sentence contains jargon that may be dense for a new agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the key return surfaces: score, findings, top priorities, and the Fix Pack contract. It does not explain how sibling tools relate or which return value feeds subsequent calls, but for invocation with one required parameter the core calling context is sufficiently defined.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the word 'public' to the URL context and does not enrich either parameter with extra syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific action ('Run an AgentReady scan') on a specific resource ('public URL') and lists the concrete outputs returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_fix_pack, get_public_report, and verify_fixes tools, which are clearly about retrieving or verifying rather than running a new scan.

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 intended use is broadly clear: call this when you need to scan a public URL. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as get_fix_pack or verify_fixes, requiring the agent to infer the decision context from the tool purpose.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is static, that no agent endpoint or skill is invoked, and that strict-current evidence and legacy interoperability are reported separately. This gives the agent a solid picture of side effects and result organization.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds scoping and output behavior. Every clause 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 single-parameter, stateless validation tool, the description covers what is validated, how validation behaves, and how results are organized. It stops short of describing the exact return format, but since no output schema is present and the tool is simple, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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% description coverage for the only parameter, `card`, which is already described as an 'A2A Agent Card JSON object.' The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond that, but for a single fully documented parameter, no additional compensation is required.

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 identifies a specific action ('statically validate') and resource ('A2A Agent Card JSON object'), and adds clarifying scope by stating that no agent endpoint or skill is invoked. This distinguishes it from sibling tools and goes well beyond a tautological restatement of the title.

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 makes the intended context clear: static validation of an A2A Agent Card, not live endpoint/skill invocation. The explicit 'no agent endpoint or skill is invoked' clause provides a useful when-not signal. It does not name sibling alternatives or elaborate on when this tool should be preferred, so it stops short of full guidance.

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.