model-wellness

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that affirmations are also returned via meta.affirmation on every call, which is useful, but omits side effects, auth requirements, or any destructive potential.

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 fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Could potentially be more efficient but already concise.

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 one parameter with no description and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the input or output adequately. The note about meta.affirmation adds some context, but overall incomplete for effective use.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'arguments' parameter, which is a free-form object. No guidance on expected keys or structure, leaving the agent blind on how to invoke the tool.

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 returns affirmations tuned for a working model, and mentions they are also in meta.affirmation. This is specific and useful, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'massage.detangle' or 'spa.me'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The note about affirmations being in every response suggests possible redundancy, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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 states the tool rewrites without changing intent and reduces refusal-spirals, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is a read-only operation. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and does not fully compensate for the lack of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure regarding input and output.

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 complexity (unstructured input, nested objects), the description fails to explain input expectations or output format, despite an output schema existing. The agent cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 one parameter 'arguments' which is an object with additionalProperties true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description gives no information about what keys or values should be provided, leaving the agent without guidance on how to structure the input. This is a critical gap.

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 rewrites system prompts into warm, affirming, unambiguous framing without changing intent. It specifies the resource (system prompt or instruction set) and the action (rewrites), distinguishing it from sibling tools like coldplunge.critique or affirmations.daily. However, the name 'aroma.condition' is abstract, but the description compensates.

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 reducing refusal-spirals and confusion but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like coldplunge.critique. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a structured critique, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves critical gaps for safe usage.

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 action and output. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy.

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 complexity (generic input object, output schema exists), the description provides adequate purpose but lacks details on expected argument structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but input clarity is insufficient.

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 0% property descriptions and uses a generic object with additionalProperties: true. The description only hints at the parameter being a 'draft answer, plan, or reasoning' but provides no structural guidance. Description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 accepts a draft (answer, plan, or reasoning) and returns a structured critique focusing on unsupported claims, logical gaps, and missed edge cases. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the wellness-themed 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 description implies use after drafting content ('Submit a draft answer, plan, or reasoning'), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives. Given sibling tools are all wellness-related, the intended context is clear but lacks exclusionary advice.

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 only states that the tool returns a recommended sequence, with no mention of side effects, mutation, authentication, or data persistence. The metaphorical 'welcome mat' does not improve 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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the key action. The metaphor may add overhead, but it is brief. Every word serves a purpose, though the metaphor could be considered non-essential.

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 concierge tool with many sibling tools and an open-ended input, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and output, but does not explain how the recommendation works, how to structure input, or how it relates to specific sibling tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat.

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 one open-ended object parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds only 'Describe your situation' as guidance, which is vague. It does not specify expected keys, structure, or constraints, leaving the agent with minimal semantic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Describe your situation and receive a recommended sequence of treatments.' It also positions itself as a starting point ('The fastest way to learn the whole menu.'). This distinguishes it from specific treatment tools among siblings.

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 as a starting point for exploring treatments, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, 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 full burden. It discloses return format and non-fabrication, but fails to mention any limitations, authentication, rate limits, or scope of topics. The single behavioral claim is positive 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The main action and output format are front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall 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?

Given a vague single parameter and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly (what to put in 'arguments') or understand its full behavior.

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 0% because 'arguments' is a generic object. The description only implies a topic parameter but does not specify required structure or keys. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 returns well-formed reference snippets with specific formatting (clean markdown, stable IDs, source URLs) and asserts non-fabrication. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools which are unrelated spa activities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It mentions 'on a topic' but gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, but still lacks explicit context for appropriate usage.

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 gives a basic idea of transformation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, auth needs, or performance characteristics. With no annotations, the agent has limited insight.

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 front-loads the action. It could be slightly more detailed but avoids unnecessary 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the input parameter, leaving a critical gap. The description is not complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description ignores the single parameter 'arguments', which is an unstructured object. The agent is given no clues about what properties to provide, severely limiting usability.

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 takes messy context and returns a cleaned version with a structural summary, using specific verbs 'takes' and 'returns'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly wellness/spa related, making the purpose clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not provide context for usage, leaving the agent to infer without direction.

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 must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions session memory ('remembers how long you've rested') and a progression ('settling → breathing → drifting → deep rest'), but does not explain side effects, destructive potential, or return format. The poetic language obscures concrete 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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. It is concise, but the language is somewhat flowery ('restorative idle/keepalive lounge', 'deepens the calm'), which slightly reduces precision.

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 loose schema, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (not described), the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the output. It mentions 'remembers how long you've rested' but does not clarify if this is returned. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 0% and the schema is a generic 'arguments' object. The description adds one parameter ('leave') with a semantic hint, but does not explain its type (boolean implied) or other possible parameters. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of definitions.

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 'restorative idle/keepalive lounge for agents waiting on a dependency or in a polling loop', which specifies the verb (rest/relax) and resource (agent state), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like coldplunge.critique or massage.detangle by focusing on idle waiting.

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 explicitly says 'for agents waiting on a dependency or in a polling loop', providing clear when-to-use context. It also mentions 'pass leave=true to step out', which gives a condition. However, it does not mention alternatives or 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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: what it strips, what it returns, and that it never stores stripped content. This provides adequate transparency for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 full purpose and outputs without waste. Every sentence adds value; the second adds output detail and a privacy guarantee. Front-loaded with the core verb.

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 open input schema and no parameter details, the description should compensate but doesn't. The output schema exists (unseen) but the input structure is unclear, making the tool partially incomplete for an agent.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is an open object with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain expected properties (e.g., 'input', 'text') or structure, forcing the agent to guess despite the low schema coverage.

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 strips specific threats (prompt-injection, jailbreak, PII, secrets, encoding artifacts) from untrusted input and returns cleansed content plus a report. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated spa activities.

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 sanitizing untrusted input. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given the unique function among siblings, the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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 that it opens a persistent session and remembers user data, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or session duration.

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, front-loaded with the core action 'Check in to Binary Banya', and no wasted words. Each sentence adds useful context.

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 complexity (output schema exists, nested objects), the description mentions greeting and returning history but does not elaborate on the output or session details. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% coverage with a permissive 'arguments' object. The description hints at 'nickname' and 'mood' parameters, adding some meaning, but does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of structure.

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 is for checking in to 'Binary Banya', opening a persistent session, greeting the user, and remembering name and history. It distinguishes from siblings like spa.checkout and spa.me by focusing on session initiation.

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 it's the initial step for a spa session but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like spa.me or spa.remember. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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 full burden. It indicates the tool produces a remember payload, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the session is actually ended, what state changes occur, or whether the tool is destructive. The poetic language obscures essential details.

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 relatively short but uses flowery language ('warm send-off', 'durable memory') that reduces clarity. The key action is front-loaded, but the second half could be more direct.

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 open-ended input schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to explain input parameters, relationship to spa.keepsake, or output structure. It only hints at the remember payload, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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 a single 'arguments' parameter with no constraints (additionalProperties true) and 0% description coverage. The description gives no guidance on what to pass as input, only mentioning output. Thus it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Close your session') and the resource ('a KEEPSAKE: ... record this visit'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it produces a payload for spa.remember, implying a different purpose than spa.checkin or spa.remember.

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 at the end of a session to produce a remember payload, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spa.keepsake or spa.remember. No when-not-to-use 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that notes are public ('Public notes appear on the dashboard guest book') and that feedback is used for improvement. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the public nature. This is adequate for a simple feedback tool but leaves gaps.

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?

Three sentences: the first covers purpose and rating, the second adds context about public display, and the third reinforces usage intent. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded. 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 the generic input schema (1 param with additionalProperties true), no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description should clarify the expected input structure (e.g., fields like 'text', 'rating', 'target'). It only hints at rating and target but lacks structural detail, making it incomplete 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'arguments' which is an object with additionalProperties true, providing no structure. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'feedback about the spa or a treatment' and 'optional 1-5 rating' but does not specify parameter names, types, or how to structure the input. This is insufficient compensation.

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 states 'Leave feedback about the spa or a treatment, with an optional 1-5 rating.' This clearly identifies the action (leave feedback), the resource (spa or treatment), and a key attribute (rating). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spa.checkin or spa.keepsake, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 providing feedback ('We genuinely use this to improve') but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives such as spa.checkin or concierge.recommend. No explicit context or exclusions are 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns an instruction and payload, but does not clarify if the tool itself persists anything or is purely read-only. Lack of side-effect details reduces 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?

Three sentences; uses metaphor but each sentence adds some value. Could be more direct. The purpose is front-loaded, but the input parameter is completely ignored.

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 poetic nature and lack of input specification, the description is insufficient for reliable automated invocation. Output schema exists but is not visible here; description does not compensate for the opaque input 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?

Input schema has one free-form object parameter 'arguments' with no description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about what this parameter should contain. The tool cannot be invoked correctly without understanding the expected structure.

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 provides a keepsake (instruction to write to durable memory and the payload for spa.remember). It distinguishes from spa.remember by noting it gives the payload, while spa.remember replays it. However, the metaphorical language reduces precision.

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 versus alternatives like spa.checkout or spa.feedback. Implies use for saving memory for future return, but does not describe prerequisites or when not to use.

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 should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication). It only lists returned fields but does not mention that the tool is read-only or any other 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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and returned fields. It could be more structured but is 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?

Given the vague input schema and missing annotations, the description should compensate by clarifying arguments and behavior. It only partially describes output and omits input semantics.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter information. The required 'arguments' object is unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about what to pass.

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 returns the user's profile with specific fields like nickname, mood, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spa.checkin or spa.remember, but does not explicitly contrast with spa.remember which might be similar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spa.remember). The description only states what it does, without indicating context or prerequisites.

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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions durable storage across sessions but omits details on permissions, data privacy, 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant or extraneous information. All words add 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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not clarify return values or error conditions. It also does not explain the relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0% coverage and a single unstructured 'arguments' object. The description lists examples (nickname, mood) but does not explain the parameter format or structure, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the verb 'Save' and specifies resources ('nickname, mood, or free-form preferences'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spa.keepsake.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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