Chaos Index

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a query interface that delegates to other data sources, implying no side effects. However, it doesn't specify response format, latency expectations, or error handling, but this is acceptable for a natural language query tool.

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 (three sentences plus examples) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the internal mechanism, the third gives usage guidance, and examples illustrate. 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 complexity (single parameter, no output schema, natural language interface), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it, and provides examples. The lack of return value explanation is acceptable for a conversational tool.

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 only one parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'question' parameter should be in natural language and providing examples. A minor gap: it doesn't clarify if follow-up questions are supported or if context is preserved.

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: 'Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source.' It uses a specific verb ('ask'), defines the resource ('Pipeworx'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it internally selects tools and fills arguments, unlike direct tool calls.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: 'just describe what you need' and contrasts with browsing tools or learning schemas. It gives three concrete examples covering different domains, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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. It discloses the search behavior and returns names/descriptions, but doesn't mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. A score of 3 is adequate given the tool is read-only by nature, though more detail would help.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly shorter by combining the first and third sentences.

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 parameters, the description covers the core use case well. It tells what it does, when to use it, and what to expect. Lacking return value details slightly reduces completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that 'query' is a natural language description with examples, and mentions defaults for 'limit'. This adds value but doesn't go beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 specific verbs 'search' and 'returns', and identifies the resource as the Pipeworx tool catalog. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST' and mentioning 500+ tools, which is a unique responsibility.

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 tells when to use it ('when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones') and provides a usage directive ('Call this FIRST'). No alternatives are mentioned, but the 'FIRST' instruction implies prioritization over siblings.

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 the description carries full burden. It states deletion but does not disclose consequences (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if it requires confirmation, or if it affects other data).

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?

A single sentence of 5 words, directly conveying the purpose. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative.

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 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the result or side effects.

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 a single 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('stored memory by key'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'forget' removes a specific key, while 'remember' stores one, or that 'recall' retrieves without deleting.

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 correctly describes the tool as read-only (retrieve/list) and indicates session persistence. Could add that omitting key lists all keys but that's already in description. 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, no wasted words. The first sentence states core functionality; the second gives usage context. Front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention the format of returned memories. But for a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, it's sufficiently complete. The mention of 'previously stored' and 'earlier in the session or in previous sessions' covers persistence 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (key param described in schema). The description adds the semantics that omitting key lists all memories, which is not in schema. This clarifies the optional behavior effectively.

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 a memory by key or lists all memories when key is omitted. It uses specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'list') and a resource ('previously stored memory'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete).

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 when to use this tool ('retrieve context you saved earlier') and implies when not to use it (no key to list all). It provides clear context for the agent to decide between recall and other memory 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: persistent memory for authenticated users, 24-hour expiration for anonymous sessions. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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, each adding distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and behavioral details. 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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage, and memory persistence. Could mention that values are overwritten on duplicate keys, but not essential for a simple key-value 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context about what values might be stored (e.g., findings, addresses) but does not elaborate on key naming conventions or constraints beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool stores a key-value pair in session memory, distinguishing it from siblings like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'forget' (delete). It uses specific verbs ('store') and resource ('session memory').

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 context for when to use this tool: to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like 'recall' or 'forget', so a slight deduction.

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