Wasilah

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

The description discloses the behavioral trait of being a read-only lookup ('Look up'), consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also specifies what data is returned (Arabic, transliteration, English, Bengali), adding value beyond the annotation. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause provides necessary information. No wasted words. Structure is optimal for quick reading.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description completely covers all input modes and output content. No missing information given the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the interplay: 'Give a number for one name, a search term... or neither to get all 99.' This clarifies the optionality and intended usage beyond what the schema alone 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's purpose ('Look up the 99 Names of Allah'), specifies the output (Arabic, transliteration, English, Bengali), and distinguishes three usage modes (by number, search, or all). This is a precise verb+resource definition that differentiates from sibling tools like get_prayer_times or get_quran_audio.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: 'Give a number for one name, a search term to match by meaning or transliteration, or neither to get all 99.' This covers all usage scenarios and implicitly tells the agent when not to use alternatives. No exclusions are needed.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only ('readOnlyHint': true). The description adds behavioral context: dates are calendar positions (not sighting announcements) and defaults to today. No contradictions.

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 with no extraneous information. First sentence captures the core function, second sentence covers input options and a key clarification. Efficient and well-structured.

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 covers input modes, defaults, and nature of dates. It is complete enough for a calendar tool, though it could mention that output includes a list of days with significance notes.

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 well-documented. The description adds relational meaning: one can use either (year+month) or (date) or none, and clarifies default behavior, which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 gets a full Hijri month mapped to Gregorian dates with significant days, using specific verbs 'Get' and 'mapped'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_hijri_date' by emphasizing the full month and significant days.

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 two input modes (Hijri year/month or Gregorian date) and notes defaults and nuances (dates are calendar positions). However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a Hijri date for a given Gregorian date or today. However, it does not disclose output format (e.g., string, object) or timezone handling, which are not covered by annotations.

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 is front-loaded. It could provide slightly more detail about output, but it avoids 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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and simple operation, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., Hijri date string or object), leaving some ambiguity.

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% description coverage for the single parameter 'date', specifying format and default. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond 'or today', so it does not compensate beyond 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Islamic (Hijri) date', and includes the default behavior for today. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on prayer times, qibla, and Quran audio.

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 tool's purpose is clear and distinct from siblings, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives. The context implies usage for Hijri date conversion, but no guidance is given.

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?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that values are 'IFB's own published values, not a computation', which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

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: first states purpose and resource, second gives usage tip and source authority. Every word adds value, no redundancy 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and how to use it. Could specify return format (e.g., minutes), but the core context is 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 has 1 optional parameter with 100% description coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining omission lists all districts, and provides example inputs. Baseline 3 with enhanced clarity.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'time offset from Dhaka for a Bangladeshi district', and specific use 'for sehri end and iftar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_prayer_times, get_hijri_calendar) which cover different religious time data.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Omit the district to list all 64', providing a clear usage pattern. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is minimal.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the countdown ('how long until it begins'), but does not disclose details like timezone inference, response format, or potential fallbacks. This aligns with the calibration example for get_calls, scoring a 3.

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 with zero fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and input mode. It is an excellent example of concise, efficient writing.

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 has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose and the primary input modes (city/coordinates). It does not explain the full response structure or edge cases, but for a conceptually simple tool, the missing details are largely covered by the schema. This earns a 4, slightly short of a 5 due to the lack of explicit return-value description.

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 71%, with descriptions for city, latitude, longitude, timezone, and offset_minutes. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema—it merely restates 'city or coordinates.' The enum parameters (asr, method) rely on their enum values. Since coverage is moderately high and the description doesn't compensate further, a 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('the next upcoming prayer'), and an additional output ('how long until it begins'). It also specifies the input scope ('for a city or coordinates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prayer_times.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the next prayer and countdown. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_prayer_times for a full schedule. The clarity of the context earns a 4, but the lack of explicit differentiation from siblings prevents a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: computation uses the same engine as the Wasilah app, and Friday Dhuhr is marked as Jumu'ah. This goes beyond the annotations without repeating them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key edge-case behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds 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?

With 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is brief but sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool. It mentions the main input modes (city/coordinates), the engine provenance, and the Friday behavior. It does not detail the return format, but the phrase 'Get the five daily prayer times plus sunrise' implies the response contents.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond stating 'for a city or coordinates,' which relates to city/latitude/longitude. Baseline 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 retrieves the five daily prayer times plus sunrise for a city or coordinates. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_next_prayer or get_hijri_date.

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 daily prayer times but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_next_prayer. There is no mention of 'use this when you need all five times' or 'use get_next_prayer for the next prayer only.' Clear context is present, but no exclusion or alternative 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not re-state safety. It adds the clarification that the result is a compass bearing, which is useful, but does not disclose edge cases, error handling, or limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 of 15 words. It conveys the purpose efficiently without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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, but the description hints at the return value (compass bearing). With zero required parameters, the description does not explicitly state that at least one of city or latitude/longitude must be provided, which is a potential gap. The schema clarifies the precedence between inputs, so overall the definition is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a high-level summary ('for a city or coordinates') but does not add meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 gets the Qibla direction (compass bearing to the Kaaba) for a city or coordinates. It uses a specific verb+resource and is distinguishable from sibling tools which cover prayers, calendar dates, and other religious topics.

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 when a Qibla direction is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools. There is no exclusion of cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral detail: return of surah name and ayah count, and differences in audio format across reciters. This is valuable context not captured by annotations alone.

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 without wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and secondary behavioral detail is added succinctly.

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 covers expected return content (surah name, ayah count, audio format). Parameters are well-documented. Sibling context is irrelevant. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or prerequisites.

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 meaning by explaining which reciters return single-file vs per-ayah audio, aiding parameter selection beyond the enum list.

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 gets streaming audio for a surah, plus surah name and ayah count. It specifies the difference in return format between reciters (single-file URL vs per-ayah), distinguishing this tool from siblings which handle dates or prayer times.

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 surah audio but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct competition, but guidance is minimal.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: what data is returned (Arabic, transliteration, English/Bengali meanings, customary count) and the default behavior when no phrase is given (returns all six). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that pack in purpose, input format, optional behavior, and default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero fluff.

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-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what arguments it accepts (via schema plus description), and what it returns. The readOnlyHint and clear usage instructions make it complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('dhikr' and 'language') already have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds some context by mentioning phrase lookup and language outputs, but it mostly reiterates schema info, so it doesn't significantly exceed the 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 clearly states the tool's function: looking up dhikr phrases in the Wasilah tasbeeh counter with details like Arabic, transliteration, translations, and count. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a unique resource (tasbeeh counter) and the exact kinds of information returned.

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 how to use the tool: provide a phrase for a specific lookup or omit it for all six phrases. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but given the sibling tools are clearly different (prayer times, qibla, etc.), the usage context is clear enough.

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