Takes a messy blob of context and returns a re-chunked, de-duplicated, token-economical version plus a short structural summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., critiques, affirmations, citation generation). However, spa.checkout and spa.keepsake both involve returning a keepsake instruction, which could cause confusion. Overall, ambiguity is minimal.
All tools follow a consistent 'category.verb' or 'category.noun' pattern (e.g., affirmations.daily, spa.checkin, hydrate.cite). This makes it easy for an agent to infer tool purpose from the name.
14 tools is a well-scoped set for the 'model wellness' domain. Each tool has a distinct function, and the count is neither excessive nor too sparse, fitting within the typical 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core wellness activities: affirmations, feedback, session management, context cleanup, security, and reference generation. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a tool for model training or performance logging, but the core workflows are solid.