Excuse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that Pipeworx picks the right tool and fills arguments, implying delegation, but does not disclose important details like latency, rate limits, or whether results are cached. The agent lacks information about side effects or limitations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It includes examples, which aid understanding. However, the second sentence could be more specific about what 'best available data source' means.

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, no nested objects), the description is adequate but lacks details on what the answer format looks like or how errors are handled. The examples help, but more context on the tool's autonomy (e.g., selecting data sources) would improve 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% with a single parameter 'question', described as 'Your question or request in natural language'. The description adds examples of expected input (e.g., 'What is the US trade deficit with China?'), which enriches the schema's bare description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already provides basic meaning.

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: asking questions in natural language and getting answers from the best data source. It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('question'), and includes examples that illustrate typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though its role is distinct as a general question-answering tool.

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 examples of when to use the tool (e.g., asking for trade deficits, drug adverse events, SEC filings) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools like 'discover_tools' and 'remember' suggest there are other query-related tools, but no guidance is given on choosing among them.

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 must carry behavioral info. It states the tool returns 'most relevant tools with names and descriptions', implying a search/ranking behavior. Does not mention sorting, pagination, or what happens if query is vague. However, 'returns the most relevant' is sufficient for a discovery 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states action and result, second adds usage context ('Call this FIRST'), third provides typical use case. 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 that output schema is absent and schema coverage is high, description is complete enough for a search tool. It tells what it returns (names and descriptions) and when to use it. Minor missing: no mention of error handling or what happens if no tools match, 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional semantics beyond schema: schema already explains 'query' and 'limit' well. No extra context needed.

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 ('search'), resource ('Pipeworx tool catalog'), and purpose ('find the right tools'). Distinguishes from siblings: explicitly tells agents to call this FIRST when needing to find tools, unlike 'ask_pipeworx' for Q&A or memory tools like 'remember'/'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 ('Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones'), implying when not to use (when you already know the tool). No alternative tool named, but the context of 500+ tools makes this a unique entry point.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on 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?

The description is a single sentence of six words, containing no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It could mention that deletion is permanent or note any preconditions.

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% and the only parameter 'key' is clearly described in the schema as 'Memory key to delete'. The description reaffirms its role, adding no extra semantics but not needing to.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('stored memory by key'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?

The description implies usage for deletion by key but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention any prerequisites or caveats.

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. It clearly states the tool is for retrieval (non-destructive) and implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't specify if listing all keys returns metadata or just keys, but this is a minor gap.

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 fluff, key information front-loaded. Slightly verbose with the second sentence being somewhat redundant, but overall efficient.

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 simple schema and no output schema, description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. Could mention that it retrieves from a persistent memory store, but current version is sufficient.

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% and description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it clarifies that omitting key lists all. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameter well.

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 it retrieves a stored memory by key, or lists all memories if key is omitted. Verb 'retrieve' and resource 'memory' are specific, and it distinguishes 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 says to use key for specific retrieval or omit to list all. Also advises to use this tool to retrieve context saved earlier in the session or previous sessions, providing clear context for use.

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. It discloses persistence behavior (authenticated vs. anonymous) and storage duration (24 hours for anonymous). This adds valuable context beyond the input 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple key-value store with 2 required params, full schema coverage, and no output schema needed, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral differences across auth states.

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 adds value by providing examples for key ('subject_property', 'target_ticker') and value ('findings, addresses, preferences, notes'), which helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 'store' and resource 'key-value pair in your session memory'. It differentiates from siblings like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'forget' (delete) by specifying the write nature.

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 on when to use: 'save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'. It also distinguishes use cases between authenticated and anonymous sessions. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives.

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