cityuikes

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 that the tool returns live data, network name, and station details (availability, slots, coordinates), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches real-time 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and return data. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (fetching live data with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return structure, but lacks details on error cases, data formats, or operational constraints, which are important for a real-time data 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter well with examples. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the parameter's purpose ('by its id') and providing context on what the id represents (e.g., network identifiers), but does not significantly enhance semantics 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 verb ('Get'), resource ('live station data for a bike-sharing network'), and specific scope ('by its id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_networks' (which likely lists networks) and 'search_networks' (which likely searches networks) by focusing on retrieving detailed station data for a specific network.

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 context by specifying 'by its id', suggesting this tool is for when you already know the network identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_networks' or 'search_networks', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 tool's behavior by specifying it returns data (name, id, location) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds basic context but misses richer 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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, and the second specifies the return data. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, limitations). The lack of output schema is partially compensated by describing return values.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 specific action ('List all bike-sharing networks worldwide') and resource ('bike-sharing networks'), with explicit scope ('worldwide'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on comprehensive listing rather than retrieval (get_network) or filtered searching (search_networks).

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 context through 'List all... worldwide' and the return data format, suggesting this is for obtaining a complete global overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_networks for filtered results or get_network for detailed information on a specific network.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search returns matching networks with location info, but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and what it returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks important behavioral details (especially given no annotations) and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools, leaving gaps in 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching by city or country name, which the schema also specifies with examples.

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 searches bike-sharing networks by location (city or country) and returns matching networks with location info. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'bike-sharing networks', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network' or 'list_networks'.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_network' and 'list_networks'. The description implies usage for searching by location, but doesn't specify alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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