Magic 8 Ball

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it automatically selects the best tool and fills arguments. It does not mention limitations or error handling, but given no annotations, it provides sufficient transparency 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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, and examples.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and simple tool purpose, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and how to use it. A 5 might require mentioning what happens if no data source is found.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by explaining the purpose and usage of the 'question' parameter with examples, beyond the schema's generic 'Your question or request in natural language'.

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 takes a plain English question and returns an answer from the best available data source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or 'magic_8_ball_ask' by emphasizing automatic tool selection and argument filling.

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 this tool: when you need an answer from data sources without browsing tools or learning schemas. It provides examples of appropriate questions, implicitly guiding against using other tools for simple queries.

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 must carry the full burden. It states that the tool returns 'the most relevant tools with names and descriptions,' which gives a high-level behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since it's a search tool, the behavioral transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the output, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 the tool has only two simple parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and is a straightforward search tool, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. A slight improvement would be to mention the return format (e.g., list of tool names and descriptions) more explicitly, but it's sufficient for effective use.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'limit') are already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the query parameter implicitly ('describing what you need'). Thus, it does not compensate beyond the baseline score of 3.

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: to search a tool catalog by describing a need. It specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('Pipeworx tool catalog'), and the method ('by describing what you need'). It also distinguishes itself by advising to call it first when many tools are available, differentiating from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or magic_8_ball_ask.

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 the agent when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This is clear usage guidance with a conditional scenario, making it highly actionable for the AI.

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 correctly states that the tool deletes a memory, implying a destructive action, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, if confirmation is required, or any side effects. The description is accurate but minimal.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information.

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 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameter's role. However, it lacks details about the operation's effect (e.g., whether it's irreversible) and does not compare with sibling tools like recall or remember.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'key' with a clear description. The tool description adds 'by key' which confirms the parameter's role but does not provide additional semantic detail 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 'Delete', the resource 'stored memory', and the means 'by key'. It directly and precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you want to delete a memory by key), but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like recall or remember for other operations.

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 the dual behavior (single vs. list) and implies persistence across sessions. However, it does not mention any side effects or performance considerations, which is acceptable for a retrieval 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action, then additional context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains the two modes of operation and the persistence context. Could mention return format 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%, and the description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting the key. However, it does not add much beyond what the schema says, so a baseline of 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 clearly states it retrieves a stored memory by key, or lists all if key is omitted. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings 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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to retrieve context saved earlier) and when to omit the key (to list all). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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 reveals persistence differences between authenticated users (persistent) and anonymous sessions (24-hour TTL), which is critical for agent understanding.

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 serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and persistence behavior. Concise without being terse.

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 (2 required string params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral constraint (persistence). No gaps for this tool type.

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 does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (key/value descriptions with examples). It merely restates the 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?

The description clearly states the tool stores a key-value pair in session memory, specifies the verb ('store'), resource ('key-value pair'), and context ('session memory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'forget' (remove).

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 advises when to use this tool: to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.

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