Apology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that Pipeworx picks the right tool and fills arguments, implying autonomous action. It does not mention any side effects, latency, error handling, or whether the tool can handle multi-step requests. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise at three sentences plus examples. It front-loads the main action and then provides context and examples. The examples are valuable but could be more tightly integrated. No waste, but could be slightly more 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior, provides examples, and sets expectations about automation. It does not discuss failure modes or limitations, but the complexity is low enough that this is acceptable.

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 only parameter 'question' has 100% schema coverage with its description 'Your question or request in natural language'. The description adds examples and context about using plain English, which goes slightly beyond the schema but not significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is high.

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: it accepts a natural language question and returns an answer by selecting the best data source and filling arguments. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that it abstracts away tool browsing and schema learning, which is not true for sibling tools like discover_tools or apology_generate.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: when you want to ask a question in plain English without needing to know schemas or tool names. It gives three specific examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like discover_tools for discovering capabilities.

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. It explains the tool performs a search and returns results, but doesn't detail whether it's read-only (assumed), any rate limits, or what happens with ambiguous queries. However, for a search tool, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with purpose and immediate action directive. Every sentence earns its place: first explains what it does, second tells when to use it. No 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?

Given it's a search tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers its role and usage. The instruction to call it first provides complete context for integration with sibling tools.

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 doesn't add meaning beyond schema descriptions for 'query' and 'limit', but the example in the query description ('e.g., "analyze housing market trends"') provides helpful guidance not present in the 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?

Clearly states it searches the tool catalog by description, returns relevant tools with names and descriptions. Specific verb 'search' and resource 'Pipeworx tool catalog' distinguish it from sibling tools like 'recall' or '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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' Provides clear context for when to use this tool (as a discovery step) and implies it's an alternative to manually searching or using other tools.

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 bears full burden. It states deletion behavior but does not disclose irreversible effects, required permissions, or side effects. However, for a simple key-based deletion, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks return value info and 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% (key described as 'Memory key to delete'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 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 'Delete a stored memory by key' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (stored memory), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'remember' (create) and 'recall' (retrieve).

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 deletion usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remember' or 'recall', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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?

Describes that omitting key lists all memories, which is not in annotations. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does well but could mention idempotency or potential size limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 and simple tool, description is adequate. Could mention return format (e.g., object with key-value) but not critical.

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 clear parameter description. The description adds context that omitting key lists all, which is not in schema. No param info in description beyond that, but schema already suffices.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair 'Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories' distinguishes two modes, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'forget'.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.' Also implies when not to use (no mention of forgetting or generating).

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. Discloses persistence behavior (authenticated vs 24-hour anonymous) and storage purpose. However, does not mention potential side effects, overwrite behavior for existing keys, or character limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with core action. First sentence defines purpose, second gives usage guidance, third adds persistence behavior. No wasted words. Could be slightly more concise by merging sentences, but structure is logical.

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 tool has only 2 simple string parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, description is complete enough. Explains storage behavior and use cases. Lacks only minor details like overwrite policy or maximum key/value length, but these are not critical for a simple memory store.

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. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the context of use (e.g., 'intermediate findings, user preferences') and persistence implications. The schema already describes parameters well with examples, but description reinforces their purpose.

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 (store), resource (key-value pair in session memory), and purpose (save intermediate findings, user preferences, context). Differentiates from sibling tools like 'recall' (retrieval) and 'forget' (deletion) by explicitly mentioning memory storage.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls') and gives behavioral details about persistence (authenticated vs anonymous). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names, but guidance is sufficient.

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