dogsapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information', but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., traits, history, health data), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex breed details. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, such as data structure or fields, leaving the agent uncertain about the return values. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The breed ID (obtained from list_breeds)'. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific dog breed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_breeds' or 'get_groups', which might provide overlapping or related information about breeds or groups.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning that the ID is 'obtained from list_breeds', implying a prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_breeds' for browsing or 'list_facts' for general facts, and offers no context on exclusions or specific use cases.

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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's likely safe and non-destructive, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all groups at once. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and includes helpful examples, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and resource but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or usage context. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at what's returned, but the simplicity keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 adds value by specifying the resource (dog breed groups) and providing examples, which clarifies the output semantics beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as per the rules.

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' and the resource 'all dog breed groups', with specific examples (Sporting, Herding, Terrier) that help clarify the domain. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_breed' or 'list_breeds', but the focus on groups rather than individual breeds or facts provides implicit distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_breeds' or 'get_breed'. The description implies it's for retrieving groups, but it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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 pagination (a useful behavioral trait) but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens when no breeds match. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 read operation with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention more about the response format (e.g., structure of breed details) and behavioral constraints to be truly complete.

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% (the single parameter 'page' is fully documented in the schema). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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') and resource ('paginated list of dog breeds') with specific details about what information is included (weight, life span, hypoallergenic status). It distinguishes from 'get_breed' (singular) and 'get_groups/list_facts' (different resources), though it doesn't explicitly mention 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_breed' (for individual breed details) or 'get_groups' (for breed groups). The description implies it's for listing breeds with details, but doesn't specify use cases, 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or whether the facts are truly random or cached. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned facts look like (e.g., format, content), any limitations beyond the parameter, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'limit' parameter with its type, default, and max value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 ('Get a list') and resource ('random dog facts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_breed' or 'list_breeds'), which might also retrieve dog-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_breed' or 'list_breeds'. It lacks context about what makes 'random dog facts' distinct from other dog-related data, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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